MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106833930 · doi:10.1586/14789450.2014.877346

MRM for the verification of cancer biomarker proteins: recent applications to human plasma and serum

2014· review· en· W2106833930 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew G. Chambers, Andrew J. Percy, Romain Simon, Christoph H. Borchers

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Proteomics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsGenome British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerBiomarker discoveryCancerSelected reaction monitoringProteomicsComputational biologyMass spectrometryMedicineChemistryBiologyTandem mass spectrometryInternal medicineChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate cancer biomarkers are needed for early detection, disease classification, prediction of therapeutic response and monitoring treatment. While there appears to be no shortage of candidate biomarker proteins, a major bottleneck in the biomarker pipeline continues to be their verification by enzyme linked immunosorbent assays. Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM), also known as selected reaction monitoring, is a targeted mass spectrometry approach to protein quantitation and is emerging to bridge the gap between biomarker discovery and clinical validation. Highly multiplexed MRM assays are readily configured and enable simultaneous verification of large numbers of candidates facilitating the development of biomarker panels which can increase specificity. This review focuses on recent applications of MRM to the analysis of plasma and serum from cancer patients for biomarker verification. The current status of this approach is discussed along with future directions for targeted mass spectrometry in clinical biomarker validation.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.366 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of ProteomicsSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207