Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23506640›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013

Gene expression profiling of breast cancer survivability by pooled cDNA microarray analysis using logistic regression, artificial neural networks and decision trees.

Hsiu-Ling Chou, Chung-Tay Yao, Sui-Lun Su, Chia-Yi Lee, Kuang-Yu Hu, Harn-Jing Terng, Yun-Wen Shih, Yu-Tien Chang, Yu-Fen Lu, Chi-Wen Chang and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Hsiu-Ling Chou
Chung-Tay Yao
Sui-Lun Su
Chia-Yi Lee
Kuang-Yu Hu
Harn-Jing Terng
Yun-Wen Shih
Yu-Tien Chang
Yu-Fen Lu
Chi-Wen Chang
Mark L Wahlqvist
Thomas Wetter
Chi-Ming Chu
National Defense Medical Center · TWCathay General Hospital · TWChang Gung University · TWChung Hua University · TWFar Eastern Memorial Hospital · TWHeidelberg University · DENational Health Research Institutes · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicroarray technology can acquire information about thousands of genes simultaneously. We analyzed published breast cancer microarray databases to predict five-year recurrence and compared the performance of three data mining algorithms of artificial neural networks (ANN), decision trees (DT) and logistic regression (LR) and two composite models of DT-ANN and DT-LR. The collection of microarray datasets from the Gene Expression Omnibus, four breast cancer datasets were pooled for predicting five-year breast cancer relapse. After data compilation, 757 subjects, 5 clinical variables and 13,452 genetic variables were aggregated. The bootstrap method, Mann-Whitney U test and 20-fold cross-validation were performed to investigate candidate genes with 100 most-significant p-values. The predictive powers of DT, LR and ANN models were assessed using accuracy and the area under ROC curve. The associated genes were evaluated using Cox regression.

resultsThe DT models exhibited the lowest predictive power and the poorest extrapolation when applied to the test samples. The ANN models displayed the best predictive power and showed the best extrapolation. The 21 most-associated genes, as determined by integration of each model, were analyzed using Cox regression with a 3.53-fold (95% CI: 2.24-5.58) increased risk of breast cancer five-year recurrence.

conclusionsThe 21 selected genes can predict breast cancer recurrence. Among these genes, CCNB1, PLK1 and TOP2A are in the cell cycle G2/M DNA damage checkpoint pathway. Oncologists can offer the genetic information for patients when understanding the gene expression profiles on breast cancer recurrence.

Indexed as

Decision TreesGene Expression ProfilingNeural Networks, ComputerOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisBreast NeoplasmsDatabases, GeneticDNA, ComplementaryFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsRecurrenceSample SizeSurvival AnalysisDNA, Complementary

Identifiers

PMID23506640
PMCPMC3614553
OpenAlexW2148390682

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.