Identifying Robust Biomarker Panels for Breast Cancer Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer remains a major public health concern, and early detection can result in more treatment options, which are crucial for improving survival rates. Metabolomics offers the potential to develop blood-based screening and diagnostics tools that are less invasive and more cost-effective. However, the inherent complexity of metabolomic datasets makes identifying the most diagnostically relevant biomarkers a difficult task, with multiple studies demonstrating lim-ited agreement on the specific metabolites and pathways involved. This study aims to identify a set of biomarkers for early diagnosis of breast cancer using metabolomics data. Plasma samples from 185 breast cancer patients and 53 controls (CHTN) were analyzed. We utilized univariate Naïve Bayes, L2-regularized Support Vector Machines, and Principal Component Analysis (PCA), along with feature engineering techniques, to select the most informative features. Multiple ma-chine learning models, including Support Vector Machines, Multidimensional Scaling, Logistic Regression, and Ensemble Learning were utilized for classification. The best-performing feature set comprised 4 biomarkers and 2 demographic variables, achieving an accuracy of 98%, demon-strating the potential for a robust, cost-effective, non-invasive breast cancer screening and diagnostic tool.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".