Creation of a federated database of blood proteins: a powerful new tool for finding and characterizing biomarkers in serum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein biomarkers offer major benefits for diagnosis and monitoring of disease processes. Recent advances in protein mass spectrometry make it feasible to use this very sensitive technology to detect and quantify proteins in blood. To explore the potential of blood biomarkers, we conducted a thorough review to evaluate the reliability of data in the literature and to determine the spectrum of proteins reported to exist in blood with a goal of creating a Federated Database of Blood Proteins (FDBP). A unique feature of our approach is the use of a SQL database for all of the peptide data; the power of the SQL database combined with standard informatic algorithms such as BLAST and the statistical analysis system (SAS) allowed the rapid annotation and analysis of the database without the need to create special programs to manage the data. Our mathematical analysis and review shows that in addition to the usual secreted proteins found in blood, there are many reports of intracellular proteins and good agreement on transcription factors, DNA remodelling factors in addition to cellular receptors and their signal transduction enzymes. Overall, we have catalogued about 12,130 proteins identified by at least one unique peptide, and of these 3858 have 3 or more peptide correlations. The FDBP with annotations should facilitate testing blood for specific disease biomarkers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".