High-throughput proteomics-guided biomarker discovery of hepatocellular carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver cancer stands as the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) comprises approximately 85%-90% of all primary liver malignancies. However, only 20-30% of HCC patients qualify for curative therapy, primarily due to the absence of reliable tools for early detection and prognosis of HCC. This underscores the critical need for molecular biomarkers for HCC management. Since proteins reflect disease status directly, proteomics has been utilized in biomarker developments for HCC. In particular, proteomics coupled with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometer (LC-MS) methods facilitate the process of discovering biomarker candidates for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic strategies. In this work, we investigated LC-MS-based proteomics methods through recent reference reviews, with a particular focus on sample preparation and LC-MS methods appropriate for the discovery of HCC biomarkers and their clinical applications. We classified proteomics studies of HCC according to sample types, and we examined the coverage of protein biomarker candidates based on LC-MS methods in relation to study scales and goals. Comprehensively, we proposed protein biomarker candidates categorized by sample types and biomarker types for appropriate clinical use. In this review, we summarized recent LC-MS-based proteomics studies on HCC and proposed potential protein biomarkers. Our findings are expected to expand the understanding of HCC pathogenesis and enhance the efficiency of HCC diagnosis and prognosis, thereby contributing to improved patient outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".