Multi-omic biomarker panel in pancreatic cyst fluid and serum predicts patients at a high risk of pancreatic cancer development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integration of multi-omic data for the purposes of biomarker discovery can provide novel and robust panels across multiple biological compartments. Appropriate analytical methods are key to ensuring accurate and meaningful outputs in the multi-omic setting. Here, we extensively profile the proteome and transcriptome of patient pancreatic cyst fluid (PCF) (n = 32) and serum (n = 68), before integrating matched omic and biofluid data, to identify biomarkers of pancreatic cancer risk. Differential expression analysis, feature reduction, multi-omic data integration, unsupervised hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis, spearman correlations and leave-one-out cross-validation were performed using RStudio and CombiROC software. An 11-feature multi-omic panel in PCF [PIGR, S100A8, REG1A, LGALS3, TCN1, LCN2, PRSS8, MUC6, SNORA66, miR-216a-5p, miR-216b-5p] generated an AUC = 0.806. A 13-feature multi-omic panel in serum [SHROOM3, IGHV3-72, IGJ, IGHA1, PPBP, APOD, SFN, IGHG1, miR-197-5p, miR-6741-5p, miR-3180, miR-3180-3p, miR-6782-5p] produced an AUC = 0.824. Integration of the strongest performing biomarkers generated a 10-feature cross-biofluid multi-omic panel [S100A8, LGALS3, SNORA66, miR-216b-5p, IGHV3-72, IGJ, IGHA1, PPBP, miR-3180, miR-3180-3p] with an AUC = 0.970. Multi-omic profiling provides an abundance of potential biomarkers. Integration of data from different omic compartments, and across biofluids, produced a biomarker panel that performs with high accuracy, showing promise for the risk stratification of patients with pancreatic cystic lesions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".