Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27688975›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

A genetic programming approach to oral cancer prognosis.

Mei Sze Tan, Jing Wei Tan, Siow-Wee Chang, Hwa Jen Yap, Sameem Abdul Kareem, Rosnah Binti Zain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Biobanking in dentistry: A review.The Japanese dental science review · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Estimation of COVID-19 Epidemiology Curve of the United States Using Genetic Programming Algorithm.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Present and future of artificial intelligence in dentistry.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research
    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

6 authors.

Mei Sze TanBioinformatics Program, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya , Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia.
Jing Wei TanBioinformatics Program, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya , Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia.
Siow-Wee ChangBioinformatics Program, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya , Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia.
Hwa Jen YapDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya , Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia.
Sameem Abdul KareemDepartment of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Computer Science & Information Technology, University of Malaya , Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia.
Rosnah Binti ZainOral Cancer Research & Coordinating Centre (OCRCC), Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya , Kuala Lumpur , Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe potential of genetic programming (GP) on various fields has been attained in recent years. In bio-medical field, many researches in GP are focused on the recognition of cancerous cells and also on gene expression profiling data. In this research, the aim is to study the performance of GP on the survival prediction of a small sample size of oral cancer prognosis dataset, which is the first study in the field of oral cancer prognosis.

methodGP is applied on an oral cancer dataset that contains 31 cases collected from the Malaysia Oral Cancer Database and Tissue Bank System (MOCDTBS). The feature subsets that is automatically selected through GP were noted and the influences of this subset on the results of GP were recorded. In addition, a comparison between the GP performance and that of the Support Vector Machine (SVM) and logistic regression (LR) are also done in order to verify the predictive capabilities of the GP.

resultThe result shows that GP performed the best (average accuracy of 83.87% and average AUROC of 0.8341) when the features selected are smoking, drinking, chewing, histological differentiation of SCC, and oncogene p63. In addition, based on the comparison results, we found that the GP outperformed the SVM and LR in oral cancer prognosis. DISCUSSION: Some of the features in the dataset are found to be statistically co-related. This is because the accuracy of the GP prediction drops when one of the feature in the best feature subset is excluded. Thus, GP provides an automatic feature selection function, which chooses features that are highly correlated to the prognosis of oral cancer. This makes GP an ideal prediction model for cancer clinical and genomic data that can be used to aid physicians in their decision making stage of diagnosis or prognosis.

Indexed as

Feature selectionGenetic ProgrammingMachine learningOral cancer prognosis

Identifiers

PMID27688975
PMCPMC5036111

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.