A Comprehensive Review of Protein Biomarkers for Invasive Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasion and metastasis are important hallmarks of lung cancer, and affect patients' survival. Early diagnostics of metastatic potential are important for treatment management. Recent findings suggest that the transition to an invasive phenotype causes changes in the expression of 700-800 genes. In this context, the biomarkers restricted to the specific type of cancer, like lung cancer, are often overlooked. Some well-known protein biomarkers correlate with the progression of the disease and the immunogenicity of the tumor. Most of these biomarkers are not exclusive to lung cancer because of their significant role in tumorigenesis. The dysregulation of others does not necessarily indicate cell invasiveness, as they play an active role in cell division. Clinical studies of lung cancer use protein biomarkers to assess the invasiveness of cancer cells for therapeutic purposes. However, there is still a need to discover new biomarkers for lung cancer. In the future, minimally invasive techniques, such as blood or saliva analyses, may be sufficient for this purpose. Many researchers suggest unconventional biomarkers, like circulating nucleic acids, exosomal proteins, and autoantibodies. This review paper aims to discuss the advantages and limitations of protein biomarkers of invasiveness in lung cancer, to assess their prognostic value, and propose novel biomarker candidates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".