ArticleJournal of cancer science & therapy2011
Distinct Gene Profiles for Tumor and Non-Tumor Tissue in the Head and Neck: An Analytical Approach.
Article in Journal of cancer science & therapy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In a study of genetic alterations, the Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) assay was used to measure gain or loss of 113 gene-probes in tumor and non-tumor tissue samples collected from each of the 220 patients with squamous head and neck cancer (HNSCC). Conditional and marginal models were available; both models account for correlated data but have different aspects. The conditional logistic regression model was proposed to estimate the subject-specific risk of tumor based on the paired tumor and non-tumor data collection, which was in contrast with the marginal model to estimate population-average risk.The modeling process included rigorous variable selection, an initial multivariable model, a final model selection, and model validation. Genes with individual effect (p<0.01) were considered as candidates for the initial multivariable model for tumor. The final model included gene-probes with p<0.01 and estimations of odds ratios (OR) 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and the model's predictive ability, measured by the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). A 10-fold cross-validation was performed to validate the model. Of 113 gene-probes, using the conditional approach, 16 genes in 7 chromosomes, remained in the final multivariable model with p<0.01 and an ROC score of 0.94. The cross-validation showed ROC mean (SD) score of 0.96(0.04). The marginal model, in contrast, ended with 8 gene-probes and had an observed ROC of 0.81.
conclusionThe conditional approach appears to be the model of choice when assessing gene-probe risks of subjects with paired data collection and fewer missing covariates, compared to the marginal approach. This multiple gene model demonstrated excellent ability to discriminate tumor from non-tumor, and supports its contribution to the pathogenesis of HNSCC as well as their potential utility for further markers of early tumor detection.
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.