Identification of a Novel Lipidomic Biomarker for Hepatocyte Carcinoma Diagnosis: Advanced Boosting Machine Learning Techniques Integrated with Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, often diagnosed at late stages due to the limited sensitivity of current screening tools. This study explores whether blood-based lipidomic profiling, combined with explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), can improve early and interpretable detection of HCC. Methods: We analyzed lipidomic data from 219 HCC patients and 219 matched healthy controls using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. An Explainable Boosting Machine (EBM) was employed to identify discriminatory lipid biomarkers and was compared against several standard machine learning algorithms. Results: The EBM model achieved superior performance with 87.0% accuracy, 87.7% sensitivity, 86.3% specificity, and an AUC of 91.8%, outperforming other models. Key lipid biomarkers identified included specific phosphatidylcholines (PC 38:2, PC 40:4), sphingomyelins (SM d40:2 B), and lysophosphatidylcholines (LPC 18:2), which exhibited significant alterations in HCC patients and highlighted disruptions in sphingolipid metabolism. Conclusions: Integration of lipidomics with explainable machine learning offers a powerful, transparent approach for HCC biomarker discovery, achieving high diagnostic accuracy while providing biological insights. This strategy holds promise for developing non-invasive, clinically interpretable screening tools to improve early detection of liver cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".