ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2011
Ranking prognosis markers in cancer genomic studies.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Joint Covariate Detection on Expression Profiles for Selecting Prognostic miRNAs in Glioblastoma.BioMed research international · 2017Article
- Boosting the concordance index for survival data--a unified framework to derive and evaluate biomarker combinations.PloS one · 2014Article
- Multicategory reclassification statistics for assessing improvements in diagnostic accuracy.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2013Article
- Adjusting confounders in ranking biomarkers: a model-based ROC approach.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2012Article
- Risk Factors of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.Expert opinion on medical diagnostics · 2011Article
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
In cancer research, high-throughput genomic studies have been extensively conducted, searching for markers associated with cancer diagnosis, prognosis and variation in response to treatment. In this article, we analyze cancer prognosis studies and investigate ranking markers based on their marginal prognosis power. To avoid ambiguity, we focus on microarray gene expression studies where genes are the markers, but note that the methodology and results are applicable to other high-throughput studies. The objectives of this study are 2-fold. First, we investigate ranking markers under three commonly adopted semiparametric models, namely the Cox, accelerated failure time and additive risk models. Data analysis shows that the ranking may vary significantly under different models. Second, we describe a nonparametric concordance measure, which has roots in the time-dependent ROC (receiver operating characteristic) framework and relies on much weaker assumptions than the semiparametric models. In simulation, it is shown that ranking using the concordance measure is not sensitive to model specification whereas ranking under the semiparametric models is. In data analysis, the concordance measure generates rankings significantly different from those under the semiparametric models.
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.