MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084674294 · doi:10.1021/pr0703223

A Proteome Resource of Ovarian Cancer Ascites: Integrated Proteomic and Bioinformatic Analyses To Identify Putative Biomarkers

2007· article· en· W2084674294 on OpenAlexaff
Limor Gortzak‐Uzan, Alexandr Ignatchenko, Andreas Evangelou, Mahima Agochiya, Peter St.Onge, Inga Kireeva, Gerold Schmitt‐Ulms, Theodore J. Brown, Joan Murphy, Barry P. Rosen, Patricia Shaw, Igor Jurišica, Thomas Kislinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsProteomeOvarian cancerProteomicsBiomarker discoveryBiomarkerComputational biologyAscitesHuman proteome projectBiologyCancer biomarkersCancerBioinformaticsIdentification (biology)MedicineInternal medicineGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological malignancy, and disease-specific biomarkers are urgently needed to improve diagnosis, prognosis, and to predict and monitor treatment efficiency. We present an in-depth proteomic analysis of selected biochemical fractions of human ovarian cancer ascites, resulting in the stringent and confident identification of over 2500 proteins. Rigorous filter schemes were applied to objectively minimize the number of false-positive identifications, and we only report proteins with substantial peptide evidence. Integrated computational analysis of the ascites proteome combined with several recently published proteomic data sets of human plasma, urine, 59 ovarian cancer related microarray data sets, and protein-protein interactions from the Interologous Interaction Database I (2)D ( http://ophid.utoronto.ca/i2d) resulted in a short-list of 80 putative biomarkers. The presented proteomics analysis provides a significant resource for ovarian cancer research, and a framework for biomarker discovery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.391 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations158
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207