MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PROTEOMICS

2008· review· en· W2145606406 on OpenAlexaff
Johann Micallef, Aaron S. Gajadhar, Joseph Wiley, Leroi V. DeSouza, K. W. Michael Siu, Abhijit Guha

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProteomicsProteomeComputational biologySystems biologyOrganismFunction (biology)GenomeBiologyBioinformaticsMedicineCell biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROTEOMICS, IN ITS broadest mandate, is the study of proteins and their functions. As the "workhorses" of the genome, proteins govern normal cellular structure and function. Protein function is not just a reflection of its expression level; it is also the cumulative result of many post-transcriptional (splicing) and post-translational events that together determine cellular localization, interactions, and longevity. The composition and variability of the proteome is vastly more complex than the corresponding genome. It is this proteome variation that helps define an organism and the unique characteristics that separate one individual from another. Aberrations in protein function, which alter normal cellular structure and function, are the ultimate basis of disease, including cancer. Therefore, an understanding of protein networks through a systems biology approach of proteomics is necessary to understand normal and abnormal cellular function, with the goal of performing rational therapeutic interventions. In this review, we focus on two emerging proteomic technologies: mass spectrometry and bioluminescence resonance energy transfer. In addition to reviewing the principles and potential utilization of these two techniques, we highlight their application in neuro-oncology research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207