The Role of Circulating Protein and Metabolite Biomarkers in the Development of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis, and this is attributed to it being diagnosed at an advanced stage. Understanding the pathways involved in initial development may improve early detection strategies. This systematic review assessed the association between circulating protein and metabolite biomarkers and PDAC development. METHODS: A literature search until August 2020 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed. Studies were included if they assessed circulating blood, urine, or salivary biomarkers and their association with PDAC risk. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled relative risk. RESULTS: A total of 65 studies were included. Higher levels of glucose were found to be positively associated with risk of developing PDAC [n = 4 studies; pooled relative risk (RR): 1.61; 95% CI: 1.16-2.22]. Additionally, an inverse association was seen with pyridoxal 5'-phosphate (PLP) levels (n = 4 studies; RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44-0.87). Meta-analyses showed no association between levels of C-peptide, members of the insulin growth factor signaling pathway, C-reactive protein, adiponectin, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and folate/homocysteine and PDAC risk. Four individual studies also reported a suggestive positive association of branched-chain amino acids with PDAC risk, but due to differences in measures reported, a meta-analysis could not be performed. CONCLUSIONS: Our pooled analysis demonstrates that higher serum glucose levels and lower levels of PLP are associated with risk of PDAC. IMPACT: Glucose and PLP levels are associated with PDAC risk. More prospective studies are required to identify biomarkers for early detection.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".