Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22403633›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Effect of size and heterogeneity of samples on biomarker discovery: synthetic and real data assessment.

Barbara Di Camillo, Tiziana Sanavia, Matteo Martini, Giuseppe Jurman, Francesco Sambo, Annalisa Barla, Margherita Squillario, Cesare Furlanello, Gianna Toffolo, Claudio Cobelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The hidden information in patient-reported outcomes and clinician-assessed outcomes: multiple sclerosis as a proof of concept of a machine learning approach.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Barbara Di CamilloInformation Engineering Department, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Tiziana Sanavia
Matteo Martini
Giuseppe Jurman
Francesco Sambo
Annalisa Barla
Margherita Squillario
Cesare Furlanello
Gianna Toffolo
Claudio Cobelli

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationThe identification of robust lists of molecular biomarkers related to a disease is a fundamental step for early diagnosis and treatment. However, methodologies for the discovery of biomarkers using microarray data often provide results with limited overlap. These differences are imputable to 1) dataset size (few subjects with respect to the number of features); 2) heterogeneity of the disease; 3) heterogeneity of experimental protocols and computational pipelines employed in the analysis. In this paper, we focus on the first two issues and assess, both on simulated (through an in silico regulation network model) and real clinical datasets, the consistency of candidate biomarkers provided by a number of different methods.

methodsWe extensively simulated the effect of heterogeneity characteristic of complex diseases on different sets of microarray data. Heterogeneity was reproduced by simulating both intrinsic variability of the population and the alteration of regulatory mechanisms. Population variability was simulated by modeling evolution of a pool of subjects; then, a subset of them underwent alterations in regulatory mechanisms so as to mimic the disease state.

resultsThe simulated data allowed us to outline advantages and drawbacks of different methods across multiple studies and varying number of samples and to evaluate precision of feature selection on a benchmark with known biomarkers. Although comparable classification accuracy was reached by different methods, the use of external cross-validation loops is helpful in finding features with a higher degree of precision and stability. Application to real data confirmed these results.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnalysis of VarianceBiomarkersComputational BiologyData Interpretation, StatisticalDiscriminant AnalysisDiseaseHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisRegression AnalysisSample SizeSupport Vector MachineBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID22403633
PMCPMC3293892

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.