ArticleBMC medical genomics2009
Accurate molecular classification of cancer using simple rules.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Classification models and SAR analysis on HDAC1 inhibitors using machine learning methods.Molecular diversity · 2023Article
- Microsomal glutathione transferase 1 in cancer and the regulation of ferroptosis.Advances in cancer research · 2023Review
- An advanced fragment analysis-based individualized subtype classification of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Identification of Marker Genes for Cancer Based on Microarrays Using a Computational Biology Approach.Current bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Differential network analysis in human cancer research.Current pharmaceutical design · 2014Review
- A comparative analysis of swarm intelligence techniques for feature selection in cancer classification.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2014Article
- Improved shrunken centroid classifiers for high-dimensional class-imbalanced data.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Analyzing the gene expression profile of pediatric acute myeloid leukemia with real-time PCR arrays.Cancer cell international · 2012Article
- Robust two-gene classifiers for cancer prediction.Genomics · 2012Article
- Gene expression profiles for predicting metastasis in breast cancer: a cross-study comparison of classification methods.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2012Article
- Microarray-based cancer prediction using single genes.BMC bioinformatics · 2011Article
- Rough set soft computing cancer classification and network: one stone, two birds.Cancer informatics · 2010Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne intractable problem with using microarray data analysis for cancer classification is how to reduce the extremely high-dimensionality gene feature data to remove the effects of noise. Feature selection is often used to address this problem by selecting informative genes from among thousands or tens of thousands of genes. However, most of the existing methods of microarray-based cancer classification utilize too many genes to achieve accurate classification, which often hampers the interpretability of the models. For a better understanding of the classification results, it is desirable to develop simpler rule-based models with as few marker genes as possible.
methodsWe screened a small number of informative single genes and gene pairs on the basis of their depended degrees proposed in rough sets. Applying the decision rules induced by the selected genes or gene pairs, we constructed cancer classifiers. We tested the efficacy of the classifiers by leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) of training sets and classification of independent test sets.
resultsWe applied our methods to five cancerous gene expression datasets: leukemia (acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL] vs. acute myeloid leukemia [AML]), lung cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, and leukemia (ALL vs. mixed-lineage leukemia [MLL] vs. AML). Accurate classification outcomes were obtained by utilizing just one or two genes. Some genes that correlated closely with the pathogenesis of relevant cancers were identified. In terms of both classification performance and algorithm simplicity, our approach outperformed or at least matched existing methods.
conclusionIn cancerous gene expression datasets, a small number of genes, even one or two if selected correctly, is capable of achieving an ideal cancer classification effect. This finding also means that very simple rules may perform well for cancerous class prediction.
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.