Prediction of ovarian cancer prognosis and response to chemotherapy by a serum-based multiparametric biomarker panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there are no effective biomarkers for ovarian cancer prognosis or prediction of therapeutic response. The objective of this study was to examine a panel of 10 serum biochemical parameters for their ability to predict response to chemotherapy, progression and survival of ovarian cancer patients. Sera from ovarian cancer patients were collected prior and during chemotherapy and were analysed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for CA125, kallikreins 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, B7-H4, regenerating protein IV and Spondin-2. The odds ratio and hazard ratio and their 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. Time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were utilised to evaluate the prognostic performance of the biomarkers. The levels of several markers at baseline (c(0)), or after the first chemotherapy cycle (rc(1)), predicted chemotherapy response and overall or progression-free survival in univariate analysis. A multiparametric model (c(0) of CA125, KLK5, KLK7 and rc(1) of CA125) provided predictive accuracy with area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.82 (0.62 after correction for overfitting). Another marker combination (c(0) of KLK7, KLK10, B7-H4, Spondin-2) was useful in predicting short-term (1-year) survival with an AUC of 0.89 (0.74 after correction for overfitting). All markers examined, except KLK7 and regenerating protein IV, were powerful predictors of time to progression (TTP) among chemotherapy responders. Individual and panels of biomarkers from the kallikrein family (and other families) can predict response to chemotherapy, overall survival, short-term (1-year) survival, progression-free survival and TTP of ovarian cancer patients treated with chemotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".