High-resolution metabolomic biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis and prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer is the leading cause of human cancer mortality due to the lack of early diagnosis technology. The low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) is one of the main techniques to screen cancers. However, LDCT still has a risk of radiation exposure and it is not suitable for the general public. In this study, plasma metabolic profiles of lung cancer were performed using a comprehensive metabolomic method with different liquid chromatography methods coupled with a Q-Exactive high-resolution mass spectrometer. Metabolites with different polarities (amino acids, fatty acids, and acylcarnitines) can be detected and identified as differential metabolites of lung cancer in small volumes of plasma. Logistic regression models were further developed to identify cancer stages and types using those significant biomarkers. Using the Variable Importance in Projection (VIP) and the area under the curve (AUC) scores, we have successfully identified the top 5, 10, and 20 metabolites that can be used to differentiate lung cancer stages and types. The discrimination accuracy and AUC score can be as high as 0.829 and 0.869 using the five most significant metabolites. This study demonstrated that using 5 + metabolites (Palmitic acid, Heptadecanoic acid, 4-Oxoproline, Tridecanoic acid, Ornithine, and etc.) has the potential for early lung cancer screening. This finding is useful for transferring the diagnostic technology onto a point-of-care device for lung cancer diagnosis and prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".