MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400265931 · doi:10.1007/s00432-024-05857-5

Metabolomic profiling of upper GI malignancies in blood and tissue: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4400265931 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ilja Balonov, Minca Mattis, Stefanie Jarmusch, Berthold Koletzko, Kathrin Heinrich, Jens Neumann, Jens Werner, Martin K. Angele, Christian Heiliger, Sven Jacob

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineMetabolomicsInternal medicineOncologyMetaboliteSystematic reviewMEDLINEData extractionBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort human studies evaluating metabolite markers identified using high-throughput metabolomics techniques on esophageal cancer (EC), cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and gastric cancer (GC) in blood and tissue. BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGC), predominantly EC, GEJ, and GC, are malignant tumour types with high morbidity and mortality rates. Numerous studies have focused on metabolomic profiling of UGC in recent years. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we have provided a collective summary of previous findings on metabolites and metabolomic profiling associated with EC, GEJ and GC. METHODS: Following the PRISMA procedure, a systematic search of four databases (Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science) for molecular epidemiologic studies on the metabolomic profiles of EC, GEJ and GC was conducted and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023486631). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to benchmark the risk of bias for case-controlled and cohort studies. QUADOMICS, an adaptation of the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy) tool, was used to rate diagnostic accuracy studies. Original articles comparing metabolite patterns between patients with and without UGC were included. Two investigators independently completed title and abstract screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation. Meta-analysis was conducted whenever possible. We used a random effects model to investigate the association between metabolite levels and UGC. RESULTS: A total of 66 original studies involving 7267 patients that met the required criteria were included for review. 169 metabolites were differentially distributed in patients with UGC compared to healthy patients among 44 GC, 9 GEJ, and 25 EC studies including metabolites involved in glycolysis, anaerobic respiration, tricarboxylic acid cycle, and lipid metabolism. Phosphatidylcholines, eicosanoids, and adenosine triphosphate were among the most frequently reported lipids and metabolites of cellular respiration, while BCAA, lysine, and asparagine were among the most commonly reported amino acids. Previously identified lipid metabolites included saturated and unsaturated free fatty acids and ketones. However, the key findings across studies have been inconsistent, possibly due to limited sample sizes and the majority being hospital-based case-control analyses lacking an independent replication group. CONCLUSION: Thus far, metabolomic studies have provided new opportunities for screening, etiological factors, and biomarkers for UGC, supporting the potential of applying metabolomic profiling in early cancer diagnosis. According to the results of our meta-analysis especially BCAA and TMAO as well as certain phosphatidylcholines should be implicated into the diagnostic procedure of patients with UGC. We envision that metabolomics will significantly enhance our understanding of the carcinogenesis and progression process of UGC and may eventually facilitate precise oncological and patient-tailored management of UGC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.040
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueJournal of Cancer Research and Clinical OncologySame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207