Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26617681›Full record

ArticleStatistical analysis and data mining2015

Prediction using hierarchical data: Applications for automated detection of cervical cancer.

Jose-Miguel Yamal, Martial Guillaud, E Neely Atkinson, Michele Follen, Calum MacAulay, Scott B Cantor, Dennis D Cox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical analysis and data mining, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

7 authors.

Jose-Miguel YamalDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas School of Public Health, 1200 Herman Pressler, Suite W-928, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Martial GuillaudDepartment of Integrative Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, 675 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L3, Canada.
E Neely AtkinsonDepartment of Statistics, Rice University, 6100 Main St., Houston, TX 77005, USA.
Michele FollenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brookdale Hospital and Medical Center, 555 Rockaway Pkwy, Brooklyn, NY 11212, USA.
Calum MacAulayDepartment of Integrative Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, 675 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L3, Canada.
Scott B CantorDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, P.O. Box 301402, Unit 1444, Houston, TX 77230-1402, USA.
Dennis D CoxDepartment of Statistics, Rice University, 6100 Main St., Houston, TX 77005, USA.

Funding

Technical FeasibilityP01CA082710 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI GUILLAUD, MARTIAL · 1999 to 2014
$28.7M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA082710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the Papanicolaou smear has been successful in decreasing cervical cancer incidence in the developed world, there exist many challenges for implementation in the developing world. Quantitative cytology, a semi-automated method that quantifies cellular image features, is a promising screening test candidate. The nested structure of its data (measurements of multiple cells within a patient) provides challenges to the usual classification problem. Here we perform a comparative study of three main approaches for problems with this general data structure: a) extract patient-level features from the cell-level data; b) use a statistical model that accounts for the hierarchical data structure; and c) classify at the cellular level and use an ad hoc approach to classify at the patient level. We apply these methods to a dataset of 1,728 patients, with an average of 2,600 cells collected per patient and 133 features measured per cell, predicting whether a patient had a positive biopsy result. The best approach we found was to classify at the cellular level and count the number of cells that had a posterior probability greater than a threshold value, with estimated 61% sensitivity and 89% specificity on independent data. Recent statistical learning developments allowed us to achieve high accuracy.

Indexed as

cross-validationDNA ploidyL1-regularized logistic regressionmultilevel classificationquantitative cytologyvariable selection

Identifiers

PMID26617681
PMCPMC4659436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.