ArticleOncotarget2017
Identification of potential tissue-specific cancer biomarkers and development of cancer versus normal genomic classifiers.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recent applications of quantitative systems pharmacology and machine learning models across diseases.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2022Pooled it
- Interleukin-37 Serum Levels in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2026Article
- Identification of potential biomarkers for lung cancer using integrated bioinformatics and machine learning approaches.PloS one · 2025Article
- Systems Biology in Cancer Diagnosis Integrating Omics Technologies and Artificial Intelligence to Support Physician Decision Making.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Identification of gene profiles related to the development of oral cancer using a deep learning technique.BMC medical genomics · 2023Article
- Article
- Enhanced Directed Random Walk for the Identification of Breast Cancer Prognostic Markers from Multiclass Expression Data.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Computational identification and characterization of glioma candidate biomarkers through multi-omics integrative profiling.Biology direct · 2020Article
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Systems Biology Approaches in Multi-Omics Data Analysis of Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Differential gene expression analysis reveals novel genes and pathways in pediatric septic shock patients.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Integration of multiple types of genetic markers for neuroblastoma may contribute to improved prediction of the overall survival.Biology direct · 2018Article
- CancerDiscover: an integrative pipeline for cancer biomarker and cancer class prediction from high-throughput sequencing data.Oncotarget · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning techniques for cancer prediction and biomarker discovery can hasten cancer detection and significantly improve prognosis. Recent "OMICS" studies which include a variety of cancer and normal tissue samples along with machine learning approaches have the potential to further accelerate such discovery. To demonstrate this potential, 2,175 gene expression samples from nine tissue types were obtained to identify gene sets whose expression is characteristic of each cancer class. Using random forests classification and ten-fold cross-validation, we developed nine single-tissue classifiers, two multi-tissue cancer-versus-normal classifiers, and one multi-tissue normal classifier. Given a sample of a specified tissue type, the single-tissue models classified samples as cancer or normal with a testing accuracy between 85.29% and 100%. Given a sample of non-specific tissue type, the multi-tissue bi-class model classified the sample as cancer versus normal with a testing accuracy of 97.89%. Given a sample of non-specific tissue type, the multi-tissue multi-class model classified the sample as cancer versus normal and as a specific tissue type with a testing accuracy of 97.43%. Given a normal sample of any of the nine tissue types, the multi-tissue normal model classified the sample as a particular tissue type with a testing accuracy of 97.35%. The machine learning classifiers developed in this study identify potential cancer biomarkers with sensitivity and specificity that exceed those of existing biomarkers and pointed to pathways that are critical to tissue-specific tumor development. This study demonstrates the feasibility of predicting the tissue origin of carcinoma in the context of multiple cancer classes.
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.