Using Public Data for Comparative Proteome Analysis in Precision Medicine Programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Maximizing the clinical utility of information obtained in longitudinal precision medicine programs would benefit from robust comparative analyses to known information to assess biological features of patient material toward identifying the underlying features driving their disease phenotype. Herein, the potential for utilizing publically deposited mass-spectrometry-based proteomics data to perform inter-study comparisons of cell-line or tumor-tissue materials is investigated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: To investigate the robustness of comparison between MS-based proteomics studies carried out with different methodologies, deposited data representative of label-free (MS1) and isobaric tagging (MS2 and MS3 quantification) are utilized. RESULTS: In-depth quantitative proteomics data acquired from analysis of ovarian cancer cell lines revealed the robust recapitulation of observable gene expression dynamics between individual studies carried out using significantly different methodologies. The observed signatures enable robust inter-study clustering of cell line samples. In addition, the ability to classify and cluster tumor samples based on observed gene expression trends when using a single patient sample is established. With this analysis, relevant gene expression dynamics are obtained from a single patient tumor, in the context of a precision medicine analysis, by leveraging a large cohort of repository data as a comparator. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Together, these data establish the potential for state-of-the-art MS-based proteomics data to serve as resources for robust comparative analyses in precision medicine applications.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it