A systematic review of metabolomic profiling of gastric cancer and esophageal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Objective:</h3> Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers, predominantly gastric cancer (GC) and esophageal cancer (EC), are malignant tumor types with high morbidity and mortality rates. Accumulating studies have focused on metabolomic profiling of UGI cancers in recent years. In this systematic review, we have provided a collective summary of previous findings on metabolites and metabolomic profiling associated with GC and EC. <h3>Methods:</h3> A systematic search of three databases (Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) for molecular epidemiologic studies on the metabolomic profiles of GC and EC was conducted. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included articles. <h3>Results:</h3> A total of 52 original studies were included for review. A number of metabolites were differentially distributed between GC and EC cases and non-cases, including those involved in glycolysis, anaerobic respiration, tricarboxylic acid cycle, and protein and lipid metabolism. Lactic acid, glucose, citrate, and fumaric acid were among the most frequently reported metabolites of cellular respiration while glutamine, glutamate, and valine were among the most commonly reported amino acids. The lipid metabolites identified previously included saturated and unsaturated free fatty acids, aldehydes, and ketones. However, the key findings across studies to date have been inconsistent, potentially due to limited sample sizes and the majority being hospital-based case-control analyses lacking an independent replication group. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Studies on metabolomics have thus far provided insights into etiological factors and biomarkers for UGI cancers, supporting the potential of applying metabolomic profiling in cancer prevention and management efforts.
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) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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".