Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24475928›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014

geneCommittee: a web-based tool for extensively testing the discriminatory power of biologically relevant gene sets in microarray data classification.

Miguel Reboiro-Jato, Joel P Arrais, José Luis Oliveira, Florentino Fdez-Riverola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. 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. Article
  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

4 authors.

Miguel Reboiro-Jato
Joel P Arrais
José Luis Oliveira
Florentino Fdez-RiverolaEscuela Superior de Ingeniería Informática, Universidade de Vigo, Campus Universitario As Lagoas s/n, 32004 Ourense, Spain. riverola@uvigo.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe diagnosis and prognosis of several diseases can be shortened through the use of different large-scale genome experiments. In this context, microarrays can generate expression data for a huge set of genes. However, to obtain solid statistical evidence from the resulting data, it is necessary to train and to validate many classification techniques in order to find the best discriminative method. This is a time-consuming process that normally depends on intricate statistical tools.

resultsgeneCommittee is a web-based interactive tool for routinely evaluating the discriminative classification power of custom hypothesis in the form of biologically relevant gene sets. While the user can work with different gene set collections and several microarray data files to configure specific classification experiments, the tool is able to run several tests in parallel. Provided with a straightforward and intuitive interface, geneCommittee is able to render valuable information for diagnostic analyses and clinical management decisions based on systematically evaluating custom hypothesis over different data sets using complementary classifiers, a key aspect in clinical research.

conclusionsgeneCommittee allows the enrichment of microarrays raw data with gene functional annotations, producing integrated datasets that simplify the construction of better discriminative hypothesis, and allows the creation of a set of complementary classifiers. The trained committees can then be used for clinical research and diagnosis. Full documentation including common use cases and guided analysis workflows is freely available at http://sing.ei.uvigo.es/GC/.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticInternetSoftwareComputational BiologyDiseaseGene Expression ProfilingHumansUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID24475928
PMCPMC3909759

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.