ArticleCancer informatics2014
Comprehensive evaluation of composite gene features in cancer outcome prediction.
Article in Cancer informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discoidin Domain Receptor-Driven Gene Signatures as Markers of Patient Response to Anti-PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Therapy.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
- De novo pathway-based biomarker identification.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Owing to the heterogeneous and continuously evolving nature of cancers, classifiers based on the expression of individual genes usually do not result in robust prediction of cancer outcome. As an alternative, composite gene features that combine functionally related genes have been proposed. It is expected that such features can be more robust and reproducible since they can capture the alterations in relevant biological processes as a whole and may be less sensitive to fluctuations in the expression of individual genes. Various algorithms have been developed for the identification of composite features and inference of composite gene feature activity, which all claim to improve the prediction accuracy. However, because of the limitations of test datasets incorporated by each individual study and inconsistent test procedures, the results of these studies are sometimes conflicting and unproducible. For this reason, it is difficult to have a comprehensive understanding of the prediction performance of composite gene features, particularly across different cancers, cancer subtypes, and cohorts. In this study, we implement various algorithms for the identification of composite gene features and their utilization in cancer outcome prediction, and perform extensive comparison and evaluation using seven microarray datasets covering two cancer types and three different phenotypes. Our results show that, while some algorithms outperform others for certain classification tasks, no single algorithm consistently outperforms other algorithms and individual gene features.
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.