ArticleCancer informatics2015
Data Requirements for Model-Based Cancer Prognosis Prediction.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer prognosis prediction is typically carried out without integrating scientific knowledge available on genomic pathways, the effect of drugs on cell dynamics, or modeling mutations in the population. Recent work addresses some of these problems by formulating an uncertainty class of Boolean regulatory models for abnormal gene regulation, assigning prognosis scores to each network based on intervention outcomes, and partitioning networks in the uncertainty class into prognosis classes based on these scores. For a new patient, the probability distribution of the prognosis class was evaluated using optimal Bayesian classification, given patient data. It was assumed that (1) disease is the result of several mutations of a known healthy network and that these mutations and their probability distribution in the population are known and (2) only a single snapshot of the patient's gene activity profile is observed. It was shown that, even in ideal settings where cancer in the population and the effect of a drug are fully modeled, a single static measurement is typically not sufficient. Here, we study what measurements are sufficient to predict prognosis. In particular, we relax assumption (1) by addressing how population data may be used to estimate network probabilities, and extend assumption (2) to include static and time-series measurements of both population and patient data. Furthermore, we extend the prediction of prognosis classes to optimal Bayesian regression of prognosis metrics. Even when time-series data is preferable to infer a stochastic dynamical network, we show that static data can be superior for prognosis prediction when constrained to small samples. Furthermore, although population data is helpful, performance is not sensitive to inaccuracies in the estimated network probabilities.
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.