ArticleCancer informatics2017
The Model-Based Study of the Effectiveness of Reporting Lists of Small Feature Sets Using RNA-Seq Data.
Article in Cancer informatics, 2017. 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.
- Gut-host Crosstalk: Methodological and Computational Challenges.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ranking feature sets for phenotype classification based on gene expression is a challenging issue in cancer bioinformatics. When the number of samples is small, all feature selection algorithms are known to be unreliable, producing significant error, and error estimators suffer from different degrees of imprecision. The problem is compounded by the fact that the accuracy of classification depends on the manner in which the phenomena are transformed into data by the measurement technology. Because next-generation sequencing technologies amount to a nonlinear transformation of the actual gene or RNA concentrations, they can potentially produce less discriminative data relative to the actual gene expression levels. In this study, we compare the performance of ranking feature sets derived from a model of RNA-Seq data with that of a multivariate normal model of gene concentrations using 3 measures: (1) ranking power, (2) length of extensions, and (3) Bayes features. This is the model-based study to examine the effectiveness of reporting lists of small feature sets using RNA-Seq data and the effects of different model parameters and error estimators. The results demonstrate that the general trends of the parameter effects on the ranking power of the underlying gene concentrations are preserved in the RNA-Seq data, whereas the power of finding a good feature set becomes weaker when gene concentrations are transformed by the sequencing machine.
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.