Bibliographic record
Abstract
A myriad of proteins and peptides can be identified in normal human urine. These are derived from a variety of sources including glomerular filtration of blood plasma, cell sloughing, apoptosis, proteolytic cleavage of cell surface glycosylphosphatidylinositol-linked proteins, and secretion of exosomes by epithelial cells. Mass spectrometry-based approaches to urinary protein and peptide profiling can, in principle, reveal changes in excretion rates of specific proteins/peptides that can have predictive value in the clinical arena, e.g. in the early diagnosis of disease, in classification of disease with regard to likely therapeutic responses, in assessment of prognosis, and in monitoring response to therapy. These approaches have potential value, not only in diseases of the kidney and urinary tract but also in systemic diseases that are associated with circulating small protein and peptide markers that can pass the glomerular filter. Most large scale biomarker discovery studies reported thus far have used one of two approaches to identify proteins and peptides whose excretion in urine changes in specific disease states: 1) two-dimensional electrophoresis with mass spectrometric and/or immunochemical identification of proteins and 2) top-down mass spectrometric methods (SELDI-TOF-MS and capillary electrophoresis-MS). These studies have been chiefly in the areas of nephrology, urology, and oncology. We review these applications, focusing on two areas of progress, viz. in bladder cancer and in acute rejection of renal transplants. Progress has been limited so far. However, with the advent of powerful LC-MS/MS methods along with methods for quantifying LC-MS/MS output, there is hope for an accelerated discovery and validation of disease biomarkers in urine.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".