ArticlePeerJ2026
HPLC-HRMS and interpretable machine learning decipher serum lipidomic signatures in NSCLC.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains the leading cause of cancer mortality, largely due to the lack of reliable non-invasive tools for detection and risk stratification. Lipid metabolic reprogramming is a hallmark of cancer and may serve as a promising source of diagnostic biomarkers. Methods: Serum from 40 NSCLC patients and 30 controls was profiled by high-performance liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (HPLC-HRMS), quantifying 331 annotated lipids. Differential and pathway analyses were performed. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), support vector machine (SVM), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Light Gradient-Boosting Machine (LightGBM) models were evaluated using stratified 10-fold cross-validation; feature prioritization used recursive feature elimination and Shapley additive explanations (SHAP). A combined clinical-lipid model incorporating selected lipids and clinical covariates was assessed with discrimination, calibration, and decision-curve analysis. Results: NSCLC exhibited broad decreases in glycerophospholipids, sphingolipids, and triacylglycerols, consistent with membrane-lipid remodeling. LightGBM showed the best discrimination in internal validation. Key discriminant lipids included lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC(O-18:1)), decanoylcarnitine, and sulfatide (SL) (SL 38:5). The integrated lipid-clinical model achieved good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.946) and acceptable calibration. A nomogram was constructed for individualized risk estimation. Conclusions: This study nominates candidate serum lipid markers and an interpretable modeling workflow for NSCLC classification in an exploratory case-control cohort. External validation and targeted quantification in larger, multicenter and screening-relevant populations are required before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.