MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322213285 · doi:10.14740/wjon1425

Carcinoembryonic Antigen, Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9, Cancer Antigen 125, Prostate-Specific Antigen and Other Cancer Markers: A Primer on Commonly Used Cancer Markers

2023· review· en· W4322213285 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shreya Desai, Achuta Kumar Guddati

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarcinoembryonic antigenAntigenProstate-specific antigenCancerPrimer (cosmetics)Prostate cancerOncologyImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer markers are molecules produced by cancer cells which may serve to identify the presence of cancer. Cancer markers can be differentiated as serum-based, radiology-based and tissue-based, and are one of the most important tools in diagnosing, staging and monitoring of treatment of many cancers. The most used cancer markers are serum cancer markers due to its relative ease and lower cost of testing. However, serum cancer markers have poor mass screening utilization due to poor positive predictive value. Several markers such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA), beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (B-hCG), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) are used to aid in diagnosis of cancer in cases of high suspicion. Serum markers such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), AFP, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) play a significant role in assessing disease prognosis as well as response to treatment. This work reviews the role of some of the biomarkers in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations64
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207