MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141891301 · doi:10.1586/14789450.2014.890894

The proteomics of prostate cancer exosomes

2014· article· en· W2141891301 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard R. Drake, Thomas Kislinger

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Proteomics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicExtracellular vesicles in disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMicrovesiclesProstate cancerBiomarker discoveryProteomicsBiomarkerProteomeProstateCancer biomarkersCancerMedicineComputational biologyCancer researchBiologyBioinformaticsmicroRNAInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exosomes and other microvesicles are emerging as rich reservoirs of tumor-specific proteins and biomarkers for cancer detection and progression. For prostate cancer, exosomes secreted by the prostate can be isolated from prostatic secretions, seminal fluid, tissue, urine or blood for further proteomic analysis. Structurally, prostate-derived exosomes are distinct in size, membrane composition and specific prostate protein content, potentially providing a novel and easily isolatable source of biomarkers from clinical biofluids. The key to these isolation strategies will be the targeting of specific prostatic proteins expressed in these exosomes, thus requiring detailed proteomic characterizations. A summary of ongoing efforts to characterize the proteome of these unique prostate cancer-associated exosomes and their potential applications for use in biomarker assays is presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations69
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of ProteomicsSame topicExtracellular vesicles in diseaseFrench-language works237,207