Capitalizing glycomic changes for improved biomarker-based cancer diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer serum biomarkers are valuable or even indispensable for cancer diagnostics and/or monitoring and, currently, many cancer serum markers are routinely used in the clinic. Most of those markers are glycoproteins, carrying cancer-specific glycan structures that can provide extra-information for cancer monitoring. Nonetheless, in the majority of cases, this differential feature is not exploited and the corresponding analytical assays detect only the protein amount, disregarding the analysis of the aberrant glycoform. Two exceptions to this trend are the biomarkers α-fetoprotein (AFP) and cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), which are clinically monitored for their cancer-related glycan changes, and only the AFP assay includes quantification of both the protein amount and the altered glycoform. This narrative review demonstrates, through several examples, the advantages of the combined quantification of protein cancer biomarkers and the respective glycoform analysis, which enable to yield the maximum information and overcome the weaknesses of each individual analysis. This strategy allows to achieve higher sensitivity and specificity in the detection of cancer, enhancing the diagnostic power of biomarker-based cancer detection tests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".