Altered Salivary Protein Profiles among Individuals Diagnosed with Cervical Dysplasia and Cervical Carcinoma in Situ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if protein-by-products secondary to cervical cancer oncogenes appear in the saliva.Methods: Four pooled (n=10 subjects/pool) stimulated whole saliva specimens from women were analyzed. One pooled specimen was from healthy women, while other pooled specimens were from women diagnosed with CIN 2 moderate cervical dysplasia (n=10), CIN 3 severe cervical dysplasia (n=10) and the other pooled group from women diagnosed with cervical carcinoma in situ (n=10). Differential expression of proteins was measured by isotopically tagging proteins in each groups and comparing them to the healthy control group. Saliva from each of the pooled samples was trypsinized and the peptide digests labeled with the appropriate iTRAQ reagent. Labeled peptides from each of the digests were combined and analyzed by reverse phase (C18) capillary chromatography on an Applied Biosystems QStar LC-MS/MS mass spectrometer equipped with an LC-Packings HPLC.Results: The results of the salivary analyses yielded approximately 133 proteins in the saliva specimens. Forty eight proteins were differentially expressed between the healthy control pool, precancerous and cancerous conditions.Conclusions: The study suggests that saliva is a fluid suffused with solubilized by-products of oncogenic expression and that these proteins may be modulated secondary to precancerous and cancerous conditions and that these proteins may be useful in the study of cervical cancer progression, treatment efficacy and the tailoring of individualized patient care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".