MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289109729 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29080430

Integrative Multi-Omics Analysis for the Determination of Non-Muscle Invasive vs. Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Pilot Study

2022· article· en· W4289109729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evan Y. Yu, Hao Zhang, Yuanqing Fu, Ya‐Ting Chen, Qiu‐Yi Tang, Yuxiang Liu, Yan‐Xi Zhang, Anke Wesselius, Wenchao Li, Maurice P. Zeegers, Bin Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesSoutheast UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceGovernment of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsMetabolomeOmicsBladder cancerProteomeMedicineMetabolomicsUrineBiomarkerExtracellular vesiclesBiomarker discoveryInternal medicineBioinformaticsOncologyCancerBiologyProteomicsGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The molecular landscape of non-muscle-invasive (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive (MIBC) bladder cancer based on molecular characteristics is essential but poorly understood. In this pilot study we aimed to identify a multi-omics signature that can distinguish MIBC from NMIBC. Such a signature can assist in finding potential mechanistic biomarkers and druggable targets. Methods: Patients diagnosed with NMIBC (n = 15) and MIBC (n = 11) were recruited at a tertiary-care hospital in Nanjing from 1 April 2021, and 31 July 2021. Blood, urine and stool samples per participant were collected, in which the serum metabolome, urine metabolome, gut microbiome, and serum extracellular vesicles (EV) proteome were quantified. The differences of the global profiles and individual omics measure between NMIBC vs. MIBC were assessed by permutational multivariate analysis and the Mann–Whitney test, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association of each identified analyte with NMIBC vs. MIBC, and the Spearman correlation was used to investigate the correlations between identified analytes, where both were adjusted for age, sex and smoking status. Results: Among 3168 multi-omics measures that passed the quality control, 159 were identified to be differentiated in NMIBC vs. MIBC. Of these, 46 analytes were associated with bladder cancer progression. In addition, the global profiles showed significantly different urine metabolome (p = 0.029), gut microbiome (p = 0.036), and serum EV (extracellular vesicles) proteome (p = 0.039) but not serum metabolome (p = 0.059). We also observed 17 (35%) analytes that had been developed as drug targets. Multiple interactions were obtained between the identified analytes, whereas for the majority (61%), the number of interactions was at 11–20. Moreover, unconjugated bilirubin (p = 0.009) and white blood cell count (p = 0.006) were also shown to be different in NMIBC and MIBC, and associated with 11 identified omics analytes. Conclusions: The pilot study has shown promising to monitor the progression of bladder cancer by integrating multi-omics data and deserves further investigations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207