MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404594413 · doi:10.7717/peerj.18486

The diagnostic utility of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) in the early detection of cancer: a systematic review

2024· review· en· W4404594413 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Douglah, Reem Khalil, Reem Kanaan, Moza Almeqbaali, Nada Abdelmonem, Marc Abdelmessih, Yousr Khairalla, Natheer Al‐Rawi

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerProstate cancerMedicineMetastasisBreast cancerOvarian cancerHeparan sulfateInternal medicineHyaluronic acidOncologyCancer screeningCancer researchPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) are a family of polysaccharides found abundantly in the extracellular matrix (ECM) of tissues. Research has indicated that the dysregulation of ECM, including changes and disruptions in GAGs, contributes to various cancer hallmarks such as metabolic reprogramming, persistent growth signals, immunosuppression, angiogenesis, tumor invasion, and metastasis. Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of GAGs, including heparan sulfate (HS), chondroitin sulfate (CS), and hyaluronic acid (HA), in early detection of cancer. Method: Four databases (PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, and Ovid) were searched for studies in English within the last 15 years, involving at least 50 human participants. Using a two-stage process: identification and screening, 11 articles were selected and critically appraised using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) appropriate for each study design. Result: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing various cancers like renal cell carcinoma (RCC), upper GI cancer (UGI), ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer and oral cancer. Methodological quality was assessed using two established tools, with no studies exhibiting a high risk of bias. Heparan sulfate levels showed diagnostic potential in renal cancer with a maximum accuracy of 98.9%, achieving 94.7% specificity and 100% sensitivity. Chondroitin sulfate disaccharides emerged as a promising diagnostic marker in ovarian cancer and showed potential as diagnostic markers in renal cancer. However, there were no statistically significant differences in urinary chondroitin sulfate levels between patients and controls in prostate cancer. In breast cancer, hyaluronic acid showed moderate accuracy (AUC = 0.792) in distinguishing metastatic from non-metastatic disease, and a composite score incorporating multiple markers, including HA, showed even higher accuracy (AUC = 0.901) in detecting metastatic breast cancer. HA demonstrated moderate diagnostic accuracy for UGI cancers. Serum HA levels were significantly elevated in patients with oral cancer and pleural malignant mesothelioma and associated with tumor progression in patients with lung cancer. Elevated low molecular weight form of hyaluronan (~6 k Da HA) levels were found in colorectal cancer tissues. Conclusion: GAGs hold potential as early cancer detection biomarkers. Further validation with larger, diverse populations is needed to validate their diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.336 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicProteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans researchFrench-language works237,207