Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26503707›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Novel Monte Carlo approach quantifies data assemblage utility and reveals power of integrating molecular and clinical information for cancer prognosis.

Wim Verleyen, Simon P Langdon, Dana Faratian, David J Harrison, V Anne Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Wim VerleyenSchool of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9TH, UK.
Simon P LangdonDivision of Pathology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Dana FaratianDivision of Pathology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
David J HarrisonSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9TF, UK.
V Anne SmithSchool of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9TH, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F001398/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current clinical practice in cancer stratifies patients based on tumour histology to determine prognosis. Molecular profiling has been hailed as the path towards personalised care, but molecular data are still typically analysed independently of known clinical information. Conventional clinical and histopathological data, if used, are added only to improve a molecular prediction, placing a high burden upon molecular data to be informative in isolation. Here, we develop a novel Monte Carlo analysis to evaluate the usefulness of data assemblages. We applied our analysis to varying assemblages of clinical data and molecular data in an ovarian cancer dataset, evaluating their ability to discriminate one-year progression-free survival (PFS) and three-year overall survival (OS). We found that Cox proportional hazard regression models based on both data types together provided greater discriminative ability than either alone. In particular, we show that proteomics data assemblages that alone were uninformative (p = 0.245 for PFS, p = 0.526 for OS) became informative when combined with clinical information (p = 0.022 for PFS, p = 0.048 for OS). Thus, concurrent analysis of clinical and molecular data enables exploitation of prognosis-relevant information that may not be accessible from independent analysis of these data types.

Indexed as

Disease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMonte Carlo MethodOvarian NeoplasmsPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsProteomeProteome

Identifiers

PMID26503707
PMCPMC4622081

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.