Autoantibodies, antigen-autoantibody complexes and antigens complement CA125 for early detection of ovarian cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple antigens, autoantibodies (AAb), and antigen-autoantibody (Ag-AAb) complexes were compared for their ability to complement CA125 for early detection of ovarian cancer. METHODS: Twenty six biomarkers were measured in a single panel of sera from women with early stage (I-II) ovarian cancers (n = 64), late stage (III-IV) ovarian cancers (186), benign pelvic masses (200) and from healthy controls (502), and then split randomly (50:50) into a training set to identify the most promising classifier and a validation set to compare its performance to CA125 alone. RESULTS: Eight biomarkers detected ≥ 8% of early stage cases at 98% specificity. A four-biomarker panel including CA125, HE4, HE4 Ag-AAb and osteopontin detected 75% of early stage cancers in the validation set from among healthy controls compared to 62% with CA125 alone (p = 0.003) at 98% specificity. The same panel increased sensitivity for distinguishing early-stage ovarian cancers from benign pelvic masses by 25% (p = 0.0004) at 95% specificity. From 21 autoantibody candidates, 3 AAb (anti-p53, anti-CTAG1 and annt-Il-8) detected 22% of early stage ovarian cancers, potentially lengthening lead time prior to diagnosis. CONCLUSION: A four biomarker panel achieved greater sensitivity at the same specificity for early detection of ovarian cancer than CA125 alone.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".