ArticlePloS one2012
Comparative analysis of methods for identifying recurrent copy number alterations in cancer.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive analysis of copy number aberrations in microsatellite stable colon cancer in view of stromal component.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
- A novel network regularized matrix decomposition method to detect mutated cancer genes in tumour samples with inter-patient heterogeneity.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- rCGH: a comprehensive array-based genomic profile platform for precision medicine.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- Consistent testing for recurrent genomic aberrations.Biometrika · 2015Article
- Copy number alterations detected by whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing of esophageal adenocarcinoma.Human genomics · 2015Article
- Article
- Detecting independent and recurrent copy number aberrations using interval graphs.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2014Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Recurrent copy number alterations (CNAs) play an important role in cancer genesis. While a number of computational methods have been proposed for identifying such CNAs, their relative merits remain largely unknown in practice since very few efforts have been focused on comparative analysis of the methods. To facilitate studies of recurrent CNA identification in cancer genome, it is imperative to conduct a comprehensive comparison of performance and limitations among existing methods. In this paper, six representative methods proposed in the latest six years are compared. These include one-stage and two-stage approaches, working with raw intensity ratio data and discretized data respectively. They are based on various techniques such as kernel regression, correlation matrix diagonal segmentation, semi-parametric permutation and cyclic permutation schemes. We explore multiple criteria including type I error rate, detection power, Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve and the area under curve (AUC), and computational complexity, to evaluate performance of the methods under multiple simulation scenarios. We also characterize their abilities on applications to two real datasets obtained from cancers with lung adenocarcinoma and glioblastoma. This comparison study reveals general characteristics of the existing methods for identifying recurrent CNAs, and further provides new insights into their strengths and weaknesses. It is believed helpful to accelerate the development of novel and improved methods.
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.