Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39208354›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Identification of a serum proteomic biomarker panel using diagnosis specific ensemble learning and symptoms for early pancreatic cancer detection.

Alexander Ney, Nuno R Nené, Eva Sedlak, Pilar Acedo, Oleg Blyuss, Harry J Whitwell, Eithne Costello, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Norman R Williams, Usha Menon and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Unveiling the Diagnostic Value and Potential Therapeutic Targets of Phenylalanine Metabolism in Pancreatic Cancer via Integrated Multi-Omics and Machine Learning.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Catching pancreatic cancer early: Are we there yet?Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Alexander NeyInstitute for Liver and Digestive Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nuno R NenéDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4275-0649
Eva SedlakDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Pilar AcedoInstitute for Liver and Digestive Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Oleg BlyussCenter for Cancer Prevention, Detection and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Harry J WhitwellDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Eithne CostelloDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Aleksandra Gentry-MaharajDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Norman R WilliamsDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6496-312X
Usha MenonMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3708-1732
Giuseppe K FusaiHPB & Liver Transplant Unit, Royal Free London, London, United Kingdom.
Alexey ZaikinDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Stephen P PereiraInstitute for Liver and Digestive Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0801228Medical Research Council G9901012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe grim (<10% 5-year) survival rates for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are attributed to its complex intrinsic biology and most often late-stage detection. The overlap of symptoms with benign gastrointestinal conditions in early stage further complicates timely detection. The suboptimal diagnostic performance of carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and elevation in benign hyperbilirubinaemia undermine its reliability, leaving a notable absence of accurate diagnostic biomarkers. Using a selected patient cohort with benign pancreatic and biliary tract conditions we aimed to develop a data analysis protocol leading to a biomarker signature capable of distinguishing patients with non-specific yet concerning clinical presentations, from those with PDAC.

methods539 patient serum samples collected under the Accelerated Diagnosis of neuro Endocrine and Pancreatic TumourS (ADEPTS) study (benign disease controls and PDACs) and the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS, healthy controls) were screened using the Olink Oncology II panel, supplemented with five in-house markers. 16 specialized base-learner classifiers were stacked to select and enhance biomarker performances and robustness in blinded samples. Each base-learner was constructed through cross-validation and recursive feature elimination in a discovery set comprising approximately two thirds of the ADEPTS and UKCTOCS samples and contrasted specific diagnosis with PDAC.

resultsThe signature which was developed using diagnosis-specific ensemble learning demonstrated predictive capabilities outperforming CA19-9, the only biomarker currently accepted by the FDA and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for pancreatic cancer, and other individual biomarkers and combinations in both discovery and held-out validation sets. An AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.98-0.99) and sensitivity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1) at 90% specificity was achieved with the ensemble method, which was significantly larger than the AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.66-0.91) and sensitivity 0.67 (95% CI 0.50-0.83), also at 90% specificity, for CA19-9, in the discovery set (p = 0.0016 and p = 0.00050, respectively). During ensemble signature validation in the held-out set, an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.99), sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.68-1), was attained compared to an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.66-0.93), sensitivity 0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.56) at 90% specificity for CA19-9 alone (p = 0.0082 and p = 0.024, respectively). When validated only on the benign disease controls and PDACs collected from ADEPTS, the diagnostic-specific signature achieved an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI 0.92-0.99), sensitivity 0.82 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) at 90% specificity, which was still significantly higher than the performance for CA19-9 taken as a single predictor, AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.64-0.93) and sensitivity of 0.18 (95% CI 0.03-0.69) (p = 0.013 and p = 0.0055, respectively).

conclusionOur ensemble modelling technique outperformed CA19-9, individual biomarkers and indices developed with prevailing algorithms in distinguishing patients with non-specific but concerning symptoms from those with PDAC, with implications for improving its early detection in individuals at risk.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEarly Detection of CancerPancreatic NeoplasmsProteomicsAgedCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalComputational BiologyFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID39208354
PMCPMC11389906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.