MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416141248 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaf201.0003

EPCO-03. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CSF PROTEOMIC TECHNIQUES FOR BRAIN TUMOR RESEARCH

2025· article· en· W4416141248 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Mansouri, Aastha Aastha, Leonardo de Macedo, Nicholas Mikolajewicz, Thomas Kislinger

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicExtracellular vesicles in disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProteomicsPeptideExtracellular vesiclesBiomarkerBrain tumorBiomarker discoveryQuantitative proteomicsMicrovesicles

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteomics offers transformative potential for brain tumor management, yet low sample volumes and diverse enrichment techniques complicate its application. A systematic comparison of proteomic methods is essential to optimize peptide yield, reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness. This study evaluates multiple analytical approaches to guide their use in CSF proteomics, aiming to enhance biomarker discovery and clinical decision-making for brain tumor patients. METHODS Retrospective CSF samples from 39 patients with CNS lymphoma were analyzed. Extracellular vesicle (EV) isolation was tested across 1.5-9 mL volumes, with reproducibility assessed using 6 mL pooled replicates. Five methods were compared for peptide profiles: MStern (50 µL), Seer (250 µL), N-glycoproteomics (N-Gp, 200 µL), P150, and P20 (both EV-based, 6 mL). Evaluations included peptide counts, reproducibility, biophysical characteristics, cellular compartment enrichment, and pathway profiles, quantified via mass spectrometry. RESULTS EV isolation required a minimum of 6 mL. P20 surpassed P150 in protein yield and particle density. Seer led with 17,000 unique peptides and top reproducibility, followed by P20 (9,000), MStern (5,500), P150 (5,000), and N-Gp (1,000). N-Gp favored acidic glycopeptides and larger hydrophilic peptides. Enrichment patterns in terms of cellular location differed: P20 (mitochondrial), N-Gp (lysosomal), Seer (nuclear). Pathway analyses revealed complementary functional insights across methods, with no single approach capturing all molecular signatures. CONCLUSIONS CSF proteomic methods are not one-size-fits-all, each offering unique strengths. Seer excels in peptide yield but is costly. CSF EV analytic volumes can be pushed as low as 6 mL. MStern, requiring only 50 µL, balances yield, cost, and scalability, suiting high-throughput studies. These results inform tailored method selection for brain tumor proteomics research.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicExtracellular vesicles in diseaseFrench-language works237,207