Multi-omic diagnostics of prostate cancer in the presence of benign prostatic hyperplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an unmet need for improved diagnostic testing and risk prediction for cases of prostate cancer (PCa) to improve care and reduce overtreatment of indolent disease. Here we have analysed the serum proteome and lipidome of 262 study participants by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, including participants diagnosed with PCa, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), or otherwise healthy volunteers, with the aim of improving biomarker specificity. Although a two-class machine learning model separated PCa from controls with sensitivity of 0.82 and specificity of 0.95, adding BPH resulted in a statistically significant decline in specificity for prostate cancer to 0.76, with half of BPH cases being misclassified by the model as PCa. A small number of biomarkers differentiating between BPH and prostate cancer were identified, including proteins in MAP Kinase pathways, as well as in lipids containing oleic acid; these may offer a route to greater specificity. These results highlight, however, that whilst there are opportunities for machine learning, these will only be achieved by use of appropriate training sets that include confounding comorbidities, especially when calculating the specificity of a test.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".