Peptidomics of Urine and Other Biofluids for Cancer Diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. The low diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of most current cancer biomarkers make early cancer diagnosis a challenging task. The comprehensive study of peptides and small proteins in a living system, known as "peptidomics," represents an alternative technological approach to the discovery of potential biomarkers for the assessment of a wide variety of pathologies. This review examines the current status of peptidomics for several body fluids, with a focus on urine, for cancer diagnostics applications. CONTENT: Several studies have used high-throughput technologies to characterize the peptide content of different body fluids. Because of its noninvasive collection and high stability, urine is a valuable source of candidate cancer biomarkers. A wide variety of preanalytical issues concerning patient selection and sample handling need to be considered, because not doing so can affect the quality of the results by introducing bias and artifacts. Optimization of both the analytical strategies and the processing of bioinformatics data is also essential to minimize the false-discovery rate. SUMMARY: Peptidomics-based studies of urine and other body fluids have yielded a number of biomolecules and peptide panels with potential for diagnosing different types of cancer, especially of the ovary, prostate, and bladder. Large-scale studies are needed to validate these molecules as cancer biomarkers.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".