Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20218737›Full record

ReviewTechnology in cancer research & treatment2010

Relative expression analysis for molecular cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

James A Eddy, Jaeyun Sung, Donald Geman, Nathan D Price

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing 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

65 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Development and validation of a hypoxia-related gene pair signature to predict overall survival in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

James A EddyInstitute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
Jaeyun Sung
Donald Geman
Nathan D Price

Funding

Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (UL1)UL1RR025005 · NCRR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2007 to 2011
$75.8M
Vaccinating against IGFBP-2 to prevent ovarian cancer relapseP50CA083636 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI DRESCHER, CHARLES, URBAN, NICOLE DENISE · 1999 to 2015
$35.1M
Identifying network pertubation using secreted protein profiles in glioblastomaR00CA126184 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI PRICE, NATHAN D · 2009 to 2011
$747k
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA083636NCI NIH HHS P50 CA83636NCI NIH HHS R00 CA126184NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR 025005NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The enormous amount of biomolecule measurement data generated from high-throughput technologies has brought an increased need for computational tools in biological analyses. Such tools can enhance our understanding of human health and genetic diseases, such as cancer, by accurately classifying phenotypes, detecting the presence of disease, discriminating among cancer sub-types, predicting clinical outcomes, and characterizing disease progression. In the case of gene expression microarray data, standard statistical learning methods have been used to identify classifiers that can accurately distinguish disease phenotypes. However, these mathematical prediction rules are often highly complex, and they lack the convenience and simplicity desired for extracting underlying biological meaning or transitioning into the clinic. In this review, we survey a powerful collection of computational methods for analyzing transcriptomic microarray data that address these limitations. Relative Expression Analysis (RXA) is based only on the relative orderings among the expressions of a small number of genes. Specifically, we provide a description of the first and simplest example of RXA, the K-TSP classifier, which is based on _ pairs of genes; the case K = 1 is the TSP classifier. Given their simplicity and ease of biological interpretation, as well as their invariance to data normalization and parameter-fitting, these classifiers have been widely applied in aiding molecular diagnostics in a broad range of human cancers. We review several studies which demonstrate accurate classification of disease phenotypes (e.g., cancer vs. normal), cancer subclasses (e.g., AML vs. ALL, GIST vs. LMS), disease outcomes (e.g., metastasis, survival), and diverse human pathologies assayed through blood-borne leukocytes. The studies presented demonstrate that RXA-specifically the TSP and K-TSP classifiers-is a promising new class of computational methods for analyzing high-throughput data, and has the potential to significantly contribute to molecular cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGene ExpressionGene Expression ProfilingHumansMolecular BiologyNeoplasmsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPattern Recognition, AutomatedPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID20218737
PMCPMC2921829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.