Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21673802›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Expanding the understanding of biases in development of clinical-grade molecular signatures: a case study in acute respiratory viral infections.

Nikita I Lytkin, Lauren McVoy, Jörn-Hendrik Weitkamp, Constantin F Aliferis, Alexander Statnikov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Viewing both sides of the coin for infectious disease diagnosis.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Biomarkers of Tolerance in Kidney Transplantation: Are We Predicting Tolerance or Response to Immunosuppressive Treatment?American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2016
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

5 authors.

Nikita I LytkinCenter for Health Informatics and Bioinformatics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, United States of America.
Lauren McVoy
Jörn-Hendrik Weitkamp
Constantin F Aliferis
Alexander Statnikov

Funding

INSTITUTIONAL CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARDUL1RR029893 · NCRR · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI CRONSTEIN, BRUCE NEIL · 2009 to 2011
$17.7M
Principled Methods for Very Large-Scale Causal DiscoveryR01LM007948 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI ALIFERIS, CONSTANTIN F · 2003 to 2005
$631k
Development of Intestinal Immune Regulation in Human InfantsK08HD061607 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI WEITKAMP, JOERN-HENDRIK · 2009 to 2013
$628k
Causal Discovery Algorithms for Translational Research with High-Throughput DataR56LM007948 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI ALIFERIS, CONSTANTIN F. · 2008 to 2008
$352k
NCRR NIH HHS 1UL1RR029893NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR029893NICHD NIH HHS K08 HD061607NICHD NIH HHS K08HD061607NLM NIH HHS R01 LM007948NLM NIH HHS R56 LM007948NLM NIH HHS R56 LM007948-04A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe promise of modern personalized medicine is to use molecular and clinical information to better diagnose, manage, and treat disease, on an individual patient basis. These functions are predominantly enabled by molecular signatures, which are computational models for predicting phenotypes and other responses of interest from high-throughput assay data. Data-analytics is a central component of molecular signature development and can jeopardize the entire process if conducted incorrectly. While exploratory data analysis may tolerate suboptimal protocols, clinical-grade molecular signatures are subject to vastly stricter requirements. Closing the gap between standards for exploratory versus clinically successful molecular signatures entails a thorough understanding of possible biases in the data analysis phase and developing strategies to avoid them. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL

findingsUsing a recently introduced data-analytic protocol as a case study, we provide an in-depth examination of the poorly studied biases of the data-analytic protocols related to signature multiplicity, biomarker redundancy, data preprocessing, and validation of signature reproducibility. The methodology and results presented in this work are aimed at expanding the understanding of these data-analytic biases that affect development of clinically robust molecular signatures. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Several recommendations follow from the current study. First, all molecular signatures of a phenotype should be extracted to the extent possible, in order to provide comprehensive and accurate grounds for understanding disease pathogenesis. Second, redundant genes should generally be removed from final signatures to facilitate reproducibility and decrease manufacturing costs. Third, data preprocessing procedures should be designed so as not to bias biomarker selection. Finally, molecular signatures developed and applied on different phenotypes and populations of patients should be treated with great caution.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalAcute DiseaseBiasBiomarkersComputational BiologyHumansPhenotypeRespiratory Tract InfectionsBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID21673802
PMCPMC3105991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.