ArticleBMC proceedings2013
A neural network approach to multi-biomarker panel discovery by high-throughput plasma proteomics profiling of breast cancer.
Article in BMC proceedings, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging population-scale proteomic data with deep learning for head and neck cancer detection in saliva.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Proteomics in Diagnostic Evaluation and Treatment of Breast Cancer: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Proteomics appending a complementary dimension to precision oncotherapy.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Deep Learning Based Methods for Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Future Direction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Mechanism-Centric Approaches for Biomarker Detection and Precision Therapeutics in Cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Identification of novel alternative splicing biomarkers for breast cancer with LC/MS/MS and RNA-Seq.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Prediction of essential genes in prokaryote based on artificial neural network.Genes & genomics · 2020Article
- Proteomics and phosphoproteomics in precision medicine: applications and challenges.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Review
- Applying computation biology and "big data" to develop multiplex diagnostics for complex chronic diseases such as osteoarthritis.Biomarkers : biochemical indicators of exposure, response, and susceptibility to chemicals · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the past several years, there has been increasing interest and enthusiasm in molecular biomarkers as tools for early detection of cancer. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) based plasma proteomics profiling technique is a promising technology platform to study candidate protein biomarkers for early detection of cancer. Factors such as inherent variability, protein detectability limitation, and peptide discovery biases among LC/MS/MS platforms have made the classification and prediction of proteomics profiles challenging. Developing proteomics data analysis methods to identify multi-protein biomarker panels for breast cancer diagnosis based on neural networks provides hope for improving both the sensitivity and the specificity of candidate cancer biomarkers for early detection.
resultsIn our previous method, we developed a Feed Forward Neural Network-based method to build the classifier for plasma samples of breast cancer and then applied the classifier to predict blind dataset of breast cancer. However, the optimal combination C* in our previous method was actually determined by applying the trained FFNN on the testing set with the combination. Therefore, in this paper, we applied a three way data split to the Feed Forward Neural Network for training, validation and testing based. We found that the prediction performance of the FFNN model based on the three way data split outperforms our previous method and the prediction performance is improved from (AUC = 0.8706, precision = 82.5%, accuracy = 82.5%, sensitivity = 82.5%, specificity = 82.5% for the testing set) to (AUC = 0.895, precision = 86.84%, accuracy = 85%, sensitivity = 82.5%, specificity = 87.5% for the testing set).
conclusionsFurther pathway analysis showed that the top three five-marker panels are associated with complement and coagulation cascades, signaling, activation, and hemostasis, which are consistent with previous findings. We believe the new approach is a better solution for multi-biomarker panel discovery and it can be applied to other clinical proteomics.
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.