MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identifying Robust Biomarker Panels for Breast Cancer Screening

2024· preprint· en· W4397011101 on OpenAlexaff
Maria L. Vaida, Kamala K. Arumalla, Pavan Kumar Tatikonda, Bharadwaj Popuri, Rashid Bux, Paramjit S. Tappia, Guoyu Huang, Jean-François Haince, W. Randolph Ford

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerBreast cancerCancerOncologyMedicineInternal medicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207