Aptamers: Promising Tools for the Detection of Circulating Tumor Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are cells that shed from a primary tumor and freely circulate in the blood, retaining the ability to initiate metastasis and form a secondary tumor in distant organs in the body. CTCs reflect the molecular profile of the primary tumor, therefore studying CTCs can allow for an understanding of the mechanism of metastasis, and an opportunity to monitor the prognosis of cancer. Unfortunately, the detection of CTCs is a considerable challenge due to their low abundance in the bloodstream and the lack of consistent markers present to recognize these cells. The aim of this review is to summarize some of the aptamer-based affinity methods for the detection of CTCs. The basic biological concept of how metastasis occurs and the role of CTCs in this process are presented. Some methods of CTC detection employing antibodies or peptides are mentioned here for comparison. The review of present literature suggests that aptamers are emerging as competitive technology in the detection of CTCs, especially due to their unique properties, but there still remain several challenges to be met, including the need to improve the throughput and sensitivity of such methods.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".