MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2493518155 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-1299

Validation of a Novel Biomarker Panel for the Detection of Ovarian Cancer

2016· article· en· W2493518155 on OpenAlexaff
Felix Leung, Marcus Q. Bernardini, Marshall Brown, Yingye Zheng, Rafael Molina, Robert C. Bast, Gerard J. Davis, Stefano Serra, Eleftherios P. Diamandis, Vathany Kulasingam

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and Angioedema
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsOvarian cancerBiomarkerMedicineOncologyCancerInternal medicineCancer biomarkersBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological malignancy. Our integrated -omics approach to ovarian cancer biomarker discovery has identified kallikrein 6 (KLK6) and folate-receptor 1 (FOLR1) as promising candidates but these markers require further validation. METHODS: KLK6, FOLR1, CA125, and HE4 were investigated in three independent serum cohorts with a total of 20 healthy controls, 150 benign controls, and 216 ovarian cancer patients. The serum biomarker levels were determined by ELISA or automated immunoassay. RESULTS: All biomarkers demonstrated elevations in the sera of ovarian cancer patients compared with controls (P < 0.01). Overall, CA125 and HE4 displayed the strongest ability (AUC 0.80 and 0.82, respectively) to identify ovarian cancer patients and the addition of HE4 to CA125 improved the sensitivity from 36% to 67% at a set specificity of 95%. In addition, the combination of HE4 and FOLR1 was a strong predictor of ovarian cancer diagnosis, displaying comparable sensitivity (65%) to the best-performing CA125-based models (67%) at a set specificity of 95%. CONCLUSIONS: The markers identified through our integrated -omics approach performed similarly to the clinically approved markers CA125 and HE4. Furthermore, HE4 represents a powerful diagnostic marker for ovarian cancer and should be used more routinely in a clinical setting. IMPACT: The implications of our study are 2-fold: (i) we have demonstrated the strengths of HE4 alone and in combination with CA125, lending credence to increasing its usage in the clinic; and (ii) we have demonstrated the clinical utility of our integrated -omics approach to identifying novel serum markers with comparable performance to clinical markers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(9); 1333-40. ©2016 AACR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and AngioedemaFrench-language works237,207