ArticleJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology2016
On the Sample Complexity of Cancer Pathways Identification.
Article in Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- De novo identification of maximally deregulated subnetworks based on multi-omics data with DeRegNet.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Protein interaction disruption in cancer.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Precision Oncology: The Road Ahead.Trends in molecular medicine · 2017Review
- Computational Methods for Characterizing Cancer Mutational Heterogeneity.Frontiers in genetics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in DNA sequencing technologies have enabled large cancer sequencing studies, collecting somatic mutation data from a large number of cancer patients. One of the main goals of these studies is the identification of all cancer genes--genes associated with cancer. Its achievement is complicated by the extensive mutational heterogeneity of cancer, due to the fact that important mutations in cancer target combinations of genes (i.e., pathways). Recently, the pattern of mutual exclusivity among mutations in a cancer pathway has been observed, and methods that find significant combinations of cancer genes by detecting mutual exclusivity have been proposed. A key question in the analysis of mutual exclusivity is the computation of the minimum number of samples required to reliably find a meaningful set of mutually exclusive mutations in the data, or conclude that there is no such set. In general, the problem of determining the sample complexity, or the number of samples required to identify significant combinations of features, of genomic problems is largely unexplored. In this work we propose a framework to analyze the sample complexity of problems that arise in the study of genomic datasets. Our framework is based on tools from combinatorial analysis and statistical learning theory that have been used for the analysis of machine learning and probably approximately correct (PAC) learning. We use our framework to analyze the problem of the identification of cancer pathways through mutual exclusivity analysis. We analytically derive matching upper and lower bounds on the sample complexity of the problem, showing that sample sizes much larger than currently available may be required to identify all the cancer genes in a pathway. We also provide two algorithms to find a cancer pathway from a large genomic dataset. On simulated and cancer data, we show that our algorithms can be used to identify cancer pathways from large genomic datasets.
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.