Cancer Metabolomics and the Human Metabolome Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of metabolomics towards cancer research has led to a renewed appreciation of metabolism in cancer development and progression. It has also led to the discovery of metabolite cancer biomarkers and the identification of a number of novel cancer causing metabolites. The rapid growth of metabolomics in cancer research is also leading to challenges. In particular, with so many cancer-associate metabolites being identified, it is often difficult to keep track of which compounds are associated with which cancers. It is also challenging to track down information on the specific pathways that particular metabolites, drugs or drug metabolites may be affecting. Even more frustrating are the difficulties associated with identifying metabolites from NMR or MS spectra. Fortunately, a number of metabolomics databases are emerging that are designed to address these challenges. One such database is the Human Metabolome Database (HMDB). The HMDB is currently the world's largest and most comprehensive, organism-specific metabolomics database. It contains more than 40,000 metabolite entries, thousands of metabolite concentrations, >700 metabolic and disease-associated pathways, as well as information on dozens of cancer biomarkers. This review is intended to provide a brief summary of the HMDB and to offer some guidance on how it can be used in metabolomic studies of cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".