MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097275194 · doi:10.1074/mcp.m114.046516

Serial Analysis of 38 Proteins during the Progression of Human Breast Tumor in Mice Using an Antibody Colocalization Microarray*

2015· article· en· W2097275194 on OpenAlexafffund
Huiyan Li, Sébastien Bergeron, Matthew G. Annis, Peter M. Siegel, David Juncker

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular & Cellular Proteomics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityOccupational Cancer Research CentreMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchConcordia University
KeywordsAntibodyColocalizationReceiver operating characteristicBiomarkerBreast cancerMammary tumorChemistryProtein microarrayMolecular biologyMicroarrayBiologyCancerPathologyImmunologyMedicineInternal medicineBiochemistryGene expressionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteins in serum or plasma hold great potential for use in disease diagnosis and monitoring. However, the correlation between tumor burden and protein biomarker concentration has not been established. Here, using an antibody colocalization microarray, the protein concentration in serum was measured and compared with the size of mammary xenograft tumors in 11 individual mice from the time of injection; seven blood samples were collected from each tumor-bearing mouse as well as control mice on a weekly basis. The profiles of 38 proteins detected in sera from these animals were analyzed by clustering, and we identified 10 proteins with the greatest relative increase in serum concentration that correlated with growth of the primary mammary tumor. To evaluate the diagnosis of cancer based on these proteins using either an absolute threshold (i.e. a concentration cutoff) or self-referenced differential threshold based on the increase in concentration before cell injection, receiver operating characteristic curves were produced for 10 proteins with increased concentration, and the area under curve was calculated for each time point based on a single protein or on a panel of proteins, in each case showing a rapid increase of the area under curve. Next, the sensitivity and specificity of individual and optimal protein panels were calculated, showing high accuracy as early as week 2. These results provide a foundation for studies of tumor growth through measuring serial changes of protein concentration in animal models.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular & Cellular ProteomicsSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207