The Role of Mass Spectrometry in Biomarker Discovery and Measurement
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
Recent advances in the biological and analytical sciences have led to unprecedented interest in the discovery and quantitation of endogenous molecules that serve as indicators of drug safety, mechanism of action, efficacy, and disease state progression. By allowing for improved decision-making, these indicators, referred to as biomarkers, can dramatically improve the efficiency of drug discovery and development. Mass spectrometry has been a key part of biomarker discovery and evaluation owing to several important attributes, which include sensitive and selective detection, multi-analyte analysis, and the ability to provide structural information. Because of these capabilities, mass spectrometry has been widely deployed in search for new markers both through the analysis of large molecules (proteomics) and small molecules (metabonomics). In addition, mass spectrometry is increasingly being used to support quantitative measurement to assist in the evaluation and validation of biomarker leads. In this review, the dual role of mass spectrometry for biomarker discovery and measurement is explored for both large and small molecules by examining the key technologies and methods used along the continuum from drug discovery through clinical development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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