ArticleBMC cancer2009
Intrinsic bias in breast cancer gene expression data sets.
Article in BMC cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A multi-gene signature predicts outcome in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Genome medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile global breast cancer gene expression data sets have considerable commonality in terms of their data content, the populations that they represent and the data collection methods utilized can be quite disparate. We sought to assess the extent and consequence of these systematic differences with respect to identifying clinically significant prognostic groups.
methodsWe ascertained how effectively unsupervised clustering employing randomly generated sets of genes could segregate tumors into prognostic groups using four well-characterized breast cancer data sets.
resultsUsing a common set of 5,000 randomly generated lists (70 genes/list), the percentages of clusters with significant differences in metastasis latencies (HR p-value<0.01) was 62%, 15%, 21% and 0% in the NKI2 (Netherlands Cancer Institute), Wang, TRANSBIG and KJX64/KJ125 data sets, respectively. Among ER positive tumors, the percentages were 38%, 11%, 4% and 0%, respectively. Few random lists were predictive among ER negative tumors in any data set. Clustering was associated with ER status and, after globally adjusting for the effects of ER-alpha gene expression, the percentages were 25%, 33%, 1% and 0%, respectively. The impact of adjusting for ER status depended on the extent of confounding between ER-alpha gene expression and markers of proliferation.
conclusionIt is highly probable to identify a statistically significant association between a given gene list and prognosis in the NKI2 dataset due to its large sample size and the interrelationship between ER-alpha expression and markers of proliferation. In most respects, the TRANSBIG data set generated similar outcomes as the NKI2 data set, although its smaller sample size led to fewer statistically significant results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.