Identification of serum proteins AHSG, FGA and APOA-I as diagnostic biomarkers for gastric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of clinically accessible biomarkers is critical for the early diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC) in patients. High-throughput proteomics techniques could not only effectively generate a serum peptide profile but also provide a new approach to identify potentially diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for cancer patients. METHODS: In this study, we aim to identify potentially discriminating serum biomarkers for GC. In the discovery cohort, we screened potential biomarkers using magnetic-bead-based purification and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry in 64 samples from 32 GC patients that were taken both pre- and post-operatively and 30 healthy volunteers that served as controls. In the validation cohort, the expression patterns and diagnostic values of serum FGA, AHSG and APOA-I were further confirmed by ELISA in 42 paired GC patients (pre- and post-operative samples from 16 patients with pathologic stage I/II and 26 with stage III/IV), 30 colorectal cancer patients, 30 hepatocellular carcinoma patients, and 28 healthy volunteers. RESULTS: < 0.0001, fold > 1.5). These 12 peptide peaks were further identified as FGA, AHSG, APOA-I, HBB, TXNRD1, GSPT2 and CAKP5. ELISA data suggested that the serum levels of FGA, AHSG and APOA-I in GC patients were significantly different compared with healthy controls and had favorable diagnostic values for GC patients. Moreover, we found that the serum levels of these three proteins were associated with TNM stages and could reflect tumor burden. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggested that FGA, AHSG and APOA-I might be potential serum biomarkers for GC diagnosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".