Cancer Biomarker Discovery for Precision Medicine: New Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Precision medicine puts forward customized healthcare for cancer patients. An important way to accomplish this task is to stratify patients into those who may respond to a treatment and those who may not. For this purpose, diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers have been pursued. OBJECTIVE: This review focuses on novel approaches and concepts of exploring biomarker discovery under the circumstances that technologies are developed, and data are accumulated for precision medicine. RESULTS: The traditional mechanism-driven functional biomarkers have the advantage of actionable insights, while data-driven computational biomarkers can fulfill more needs, especially with tremendous data on the molecules of different layers (e.g. genetic mutation, mRNA, protein etc.) which are accumulated based on a plenty of technologies. Besides, the technology-driven liquid biopsy biomarker is very promising to improve patients' survival. The developments of biomarker discovery on these aspects are promoting the understanding of cancer, helping the stratification of patients and improving patients' survival. CONCLUSION: Current developments on mechanisms-, data- and technology-driven biomarker discovery are achieving the aim of precision medicine and promoting the clinical application of biomarkers. Meanwhile, the complexity of cancer requires more effective biomarkers, which could be accomplished by a comprehensive integration of multiple types of biomarkers together with a deep understanding of cancer.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".