Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28710702›Full record

ArticleEURASIP journal on bioinformatics & systems biology2017

Bayesian inference for biomarker discovery in proteomics: an analytic solution.

Noura Dridi, Audrey Giremus, Jean-Francois Giovannelli, Caroline Truntzer, Melita Hadzagic, Jean-Philippe Charrier, Laurent Gerfault, Patrick Ducoroy, Bruno Lacroix, Pierre Grangeat and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EURASIP journal on bioinformatics & systems biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Noura DridiIMS (Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, BINP), Talence, 33400, France.
Audrey GiremusIMS (Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, BINP), Talence, 33400, France.
Jean-Francois GiovannelliIMS (Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, BINP), Talence, 33400, France. Giova@IMS-Bordeaux.fr.
Caroline TruntzerCLIPP, Pôle de Recherche Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, 21000, France.
Melita HadzagicIMS (Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, BINP), Talence, 33400, France.
Jean-Philippe CharrierTechnology Research Department, Innovation Unit, bioMérieux SA, Marcy l'Étoile, France.
Laurent GerfaultUniv. Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, F-38000, France.
Patrick DucoroyCLIPP, Pôle de Recherche Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, 21000, France.
Bruno LacroixTechnology Research Department, Innovation Unit, bioMérieux SA, Marcy l'Étoile, France.
Pierre GrangeatUniv. Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, F-38000, France.
Pascal RoyService de Biostatistique - Bioinformatique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper addresses the question of biomarker discovery in proteomics. Given clinical data regarding a list of proteins for a set of individuals, the tackled problem is to extract a short subset of proteins the concentrations of which are an indicator of the biological status (healthy or pathological). In this paper, it is formulated as a specific instance of variable selection. The originality is that the proteins are not investigated one after the other but the best partition between discriminant and non-discriminant proteins is directly sought. In this way, correlations between the proteins are intrinsically taken into account in the decision. The developed strategy is derived in a Bayesian setting, and the decision is optimal in the sense that it minimizes a global mean error. It is finally based on the posterior probabilities of the partitions. The main difficulty is to calculate these probabilities since they are based on the so-called evidence that require marginalization of all the unknown model parameters. Two models are presented that relate the status to the protein concentrations, depending whether the latter are biomarkers or not. The first model accounts for biological variabilities by assuming that the concentrations are Gaussian distributed with a mean and a covariance matrix that depend on the status only for the biomarkers. The second one is an extension that also takes into account the technical variabilities that may significantly impact the observed concentrations. The main contributions of the paper are: (1) a new Bayesian formulation of the biomarker selection problem, (2) the closed-form expression of the posterior probabilities in the noiseless case, and (3) a suitable approximated solution in the noisy case. The methods are numerically assessed and compared to the state-of-the-art methods (t test, LASSO, Battacharyya distance, FOHSIC) on synthetic and real data from proteins quantified in human serum by mass spectrometry in selected reaction monitoring mode.

Indexed as

Bayesian approachBiomarkerEvidenceHierarchical modelModel selectionOptimal decisionProteomicsVariable selection

Identifiers

PMID28710702
PMCPMC5511129

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.