Cancer secretomics reveal pathophysiological pathways in cancer molecular oncology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging proteomic tools and mass spectrometry play pivotal roles in protein identification, quantification and characterization, even in complex biological samples. The cancer secretome, namely the whole collection of proteins secreted by cancer cells through various secretory pathways, has only recently been shown to have significant potential for diverse applications in oncoproteomics. For example, secreted proteins might represent putative tumor biomarkers or therapeutic targets for various types of cancer. Consequently, many proteomic strategies for secretome analysis have been extensively deployed over the last few years. These efforts generated a large amount of information awaiting deeper mining, better understanding and careful interpretation. Distinct sub-fields, such as degradomics, exosome proteomics and tumor-host cell interactions have been developed, in an attempt to provide certain answers to partially elucidated mechanisms of cancer pathobiology. In this review, advances, concerns and challenges in the field of secretome analysis as well as possible clinical applications are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it