ArticleCancer informatics2015
Computing molecular signatures as optima of a bi-objective function: method and application to prediction in oncogenomics.
Article in Cancer informatics, 2015. 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.
- Framework for feature selection of predicting the diagnosis and prognosis of necrotizing enterocolitis.PloS one · 2022Article
- RIFS: a randomly restarted incremental feature selection algorithm.Scientific reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFilter feature selection methods compute molecular signatures by selecting subsets of genes in the ranking of a valuation function. The motivations of the valuation functions choice are almost always clearly stated, but those for selecting the genes according to their ranking are hardly ever explicit.
methodWe addressed the computation of molecular signatures by searching the optima of a bi-objective function whose solution space was the set of all possible molecular signatures, ie, the set of subsets of genes. The two objectives were the size of the signature-to be minimized-and the interclass distance induced by the signature-to be maximized-.
resultsWe showed that: 1) the convex combination of the two objectives had exactly n optimal non empty signatures where n was the number of genes, 2) the n optimal signatures were nested, and 3) the optimal signature of size k was the subset of k top ranked genes that contributed the most to the interclass distance. We applied our feature selection method on five public datasets in oncology, and assessed the prediction performances of the optimal signatures as input to the diagonal linear discriminant analysis (DLDA) classifier. They were at the same level or better than the best-reported ones. The predictions were robust, and the signatures were almost always significantly smaller. We studied in more details the performances of our predictive modeling on two breast cancer datasets to predict the response to a preoperative chemotherapy: the performances were higher than the previously reported ones, the signatures were three times smaller (11 versus 30 gene signatures), and the genes member of the signature were known to be involved in the response to chemotherapy.
conclusionsDefining molecular signatures as the optima of a bi-objective function that combined the signature size and the interclass distance was well founded and efficient for prediction in oncogenomics. The complexity of the computation was very low because the optimal signatures were the sets of genes in the ranking of their valuation. Software can be freely downloaded from http://gardeux-vincent.eu/DeltaRanking.php.
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.