Using Public Data for Comparative Proteome Analysis in Precision Medicine Programs
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.
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 | 0.084 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".