Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22410950›Full record

ReviewEcotoxicology (London, England)2012

Finding biomarkers is getting easier.

Brian Patrick Bradley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

1 author.

Brian Patrick BradleyDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA. bbradley@umbc.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single biomarkers are rarely accurate. Even suites of biomarkers can give conflicting results. Ideally potent combinations of variables are isolated which accurately identify specific analytes and their level of toxicity. The search for such combinations can be done by reducing the thousands of candidate variables to the small number necessary for treatment classification. When the key variables are recognized by machine learning (ML) the results are quite surprising, given the apparent failure of other searching methods to produce good diagnostics. Proteins seem especially useful for portable field tests of a variety of adverse conditions. This review shows how ML, in particular artificial neural networks, can find potent biomarkers embedded in any type of expression data, mainly proteins in this article. A computer does multiple iterations to produce sets of proteins which systematically identify (to near 100% accuracy) the treatment classes of interest. Whether these proteins are useful in actual diagnoses is tested by presenting the computer model with unknown classes. Finding the biomarkers is getting easier but there still must be confirmation, by multivariable statistics and with field studies.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDatabases, ProteinNeural Networks, ComputerData MiningReproducibility of ResultsXenobioticsBiomarkersXenobiotics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.