Identification of potential extracellular vesicle protein markers altered in osteosarcoma from public databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have become promising biomarkers for cancer management. Particularly, the molecular cargo such as proteins carried by EVs are similar to their cells of origin, providing important information that can be used for cancer diagnostics, prognosis, and treatment monitoring. However, to date, molecular analysis on EVs is still challenging, limited by the availability of efficient analytical technologies, largely due to the small size of EVs. In this work, we developed a computational workflow for in silico identification of potential EV protein markers from genomic and proteomic databases, and applied it for the discovery of osteosarcoma (OS) EV protein markers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Both mRNA and protein data were computed and compared from publicly accessible databases, and top markers with high differential expression levels were selected. RESULTS: Thirty nine markers were identified overexpressed and seven found to be downregulated. These identified markers have been found to be associated with OS on different aspects in literature, demonstrating the usability of this workflow. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This work provides a list of potential EV protein markers that are either overexpressed or downregulated in OS for further experimental validation for improved clinical management of OS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".