ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2017
Personalized Analysis by Validation of Monte Carlo for Application of Pathways in Cardioembolic Stroke.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cardioembolic stroke (CES), which causes 20% cause of all ischemic strokes, is associated with high mortality. Previous studies suggest that pathways play a critical role in the identification and pathogenesis of diseases. We aimed to develop an integrated approach that is able to construct individual networks of pathway cross-talk to quantify differences between patients with CES and controls. MATERIAL AND METHODS One biological data set E-GEOD-58294 was used, including 23 normal controls and 59 CES samples. We used individualized pathway aberrance score (iPAS) to assess pathway statistics of 589 Ingenuity Pathways Analysis (IPA) pathways. Random Forest (RF) classification was implemented to calculate the AUC of every network. These procedures were tested by Monte Carlo Cross-Validation for 50 bootstraps. RESULTS A total of 28 networks with AUC >0.9 were found between CES and controls. Among them, 3 networks with AUC=1.0 had the best performance for classification in 50 bootstraps. The 3 pathway networks were able to significantly identify CES versus controls, which showed as biomarkers in the regulation and development of CES. CONCLUSIONS This novel approach could identify 3 networks able to accurately classify CES and normal samples in individuals. This integrated application needs to be validated in other diseases.
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.