Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28361685›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2017

Sparse feature selection for classification and prediction of metastasis in endometrial cancer.

Mehmet Eren Ahsen, Todd P Boren, Nitin K Singh, Burook Misganaw, David G Mutch, Kathleen N Moore, Floor J Backes, Carolyn K McCourt, Jayanthi S Lea, David S Miller and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Potential Regulation ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Controversy on Positive Peritoneal Cytology of Endometrial Carcinoma.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022
    Review
  5. Non-Coding RNAs as Prognostic Markers for Endometrial Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  6. Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors.

Mehmet Eren AhsenIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA.
Todd P BorenThe University of Tennessee, College of Medicine, KnoxvilleTN, USA.
Nitin K SinghApple R&D, Austin, TX, USA.
Burook MisganawHarvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
David G MutchThe Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Kathleen N MooreThe University of Oklohoma, Norman, OK, USA.
Floor J BackesThe Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Carolyn K McCourtWomen and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Jayanthi S LeaUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, TX, Dallas, USA.
David S MillerUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, TX, Dallas, USA.
Michael A WhiteUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, TX, Dallas, USA. michael.white@utsouthwestern.edu.
Mathukumalli VidyasagarThe University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA. m.vidyasagar@utdallas.edu.

Funding

NRG Oncology Network Group Operations Center - GY9 BIQSFP Reports/BudgetsU10CA180868 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI NORMAN WOLMARK · 2014 to 2026
$206.8M
NRG Oncology Biospecimen BankU24CA196067 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI Tanner J. Freeman, Nilsa Del Carmen Ramirez Milan · 2015 to 2026
$42.6M
Washington University/ Siteman Cancer Center Lead Academic SiteU10CA180833 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BARTLETT, NANCY L, KOZOWER, BENJAMIN D · 2014 to 2018
$7.6M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180833NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868NCI NIH HHS U24 CA196067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetastasis via pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph nodes is a major risk factor for endometrial cancer. Lymph-node resection ameliorates risk but is associated with significant co-morbidities. Incidence in patients with stage I disease is 4-22% but no mechanism exists to accurately predict it. Therefore, national guidelines for primary staging surgery include pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection for all patients whose tumor exceeds 2cm in diameter. We sought to identify a robust molecular signature that can accurately classify risk of lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer patients. 86 tumors matched for age and race, and evenly distributed between lymph node-positive and lymph node-negative cases, were selected as a training cohort. Genomic micro-RNA expression was profiled for each sample to serve as the predictive feature matrix. An independent set of 28 tumor samples was collected and similarly characterized to serve as a test cohort.

resultsA feature selection algorithm was designed for applications where the number of samples is far smaller than the number of measured features per sample. A predictive miRNA expression signature was developed using this algorithm, which was then used to predict the metastatic status of the independent test cohort. A weighted classifier, using 18 micro-RNAs, achieved 100% accuracy on the training cohort. When applied to the testing cohort, the classifier correctly predicted 90% of node-positive cases, and 80% of node-negative cases (FDR = 6.25%).

conclusionResults indicate that the evaluation of the quantitative sparse-feature classifier proposed here in clinical trials may lead to significant improvement in the prediction of lymphatic metastases in endometrial cancer patients.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGenomicsHumansMicroRNAsNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingPrognosisMicroRNAsEndometrial cancerLymph node metastasisMachine learningSparse classification

Identifiers

PMID28361685
PMCPMC5374706

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.