ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009
A comprehensive sensitivity analysis of microarray breast cancer classification under feature variability.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- New insight for pharmacogenomics studies from the transcriptional analysis of two large-scale cancer cell line panels.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Single sample expression-anchored mechanisms predict survival in head and neck cancer.PLoS computational biology · 2012Article
- An integrated approach for identifying wrongly labelled samples when performing classification in microarray data.PloS one · 2012Article
- Prediction of breast cancer metastasis by gene expression profiles: a comparison of metagenes and single genes.Cancer informatics · 2012Article
- Lack of sufficiently strong informative features limits the potential of gene expression analysis as predictive tool for many clinical classification problems.BMC bioinformatics · 2011Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge discrepancies in signature composition and outcome concordance have been observed between different microarray breast cancer expression profiling studies. This is often ascribed to differences in array platform as well as biological variability. We conjecture that other reasons for the observed discrepancies are the measurement error associated with each feature and the choice of preprocessing method. Microarray data are known to be subject to technical variation and the confidence intervals around individual point estimates of expression levels can be wide. Furthermore, the estimated expression values also vary depending on the selected preprocessing scheme. In microarray breast cancer classification studies, however, these two forms of feature variability are almost always ignored and hence their exact role is unclear.
resultsWe have performed a comprehensive sensitivity analysis of microarray breast cancer classification under the two types of feature variability mentioned above. We used data from six state of the art preprocessing methods, using a compendium consisting of eight different datasets, involving 1131 hybridizations, containing data from both one and two-color array technology. For a wide range of classifiers, we performed a joint study on performance, concordance and stability. In the stability analysis we explicitly tested classifiers for their noise tolerance by using perturbed expression profiles that are based on uncertainty information directly related to the preprocessing methods. Our results indicate that signature composition is strongly influenced by feature variability, even if the array platform and the stratification of patient samples are identical. In addition, we show that there is often a high level of discordance between individual class assignments for signatures constructed on data coming from different preprocessing schemes, even if the actual signature composition is identical.
conclusionFeature variability can have a strong impact on breast cancer signature composition, as well as the classification of individual patient samples. We therefore strongly recommend that feature variability is considered in analyzing data from microarray breast cancer expression profiling experiments.
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.