ArticleIranian biomedical journal2018
Application of Sparse Linear Discriminant Analysis and Elastic Net for Diagnosis of IgA Nephropathy: Statistical and Biological Viewpoints
Article in Iranian biomedical journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proteomic Insights into IgA Nephropathy: A Comprehensive Analysis of Differentially Expressed Proteins in the Kidney.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Omics are Getting Us Closer to Understanding IgA Nephropathy.Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis · 2023Review
- Applying machine learning to explore the association between biological stress and near misses in emergency medicine residents.PloS one · 2022Article
- Urinary Protein and Peptide Markers in Chronic Kidney Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Article
- Chronic kidney disease: a review of proteomic and metabolomic approaches to membranous glomerulonephritis, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, and IgA nephropathy biomarkers.Proteome science · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common primary glomerulonephritis diagnosed based on renal biopsy. Mesangial IgA deposits along with the proliferation of mesangial cells are the histologic hallmark of IgAN. Non-invasive diagnostic tools may help to prompt diagnosis and therapy. The discovery of potential and reliable urinary biomarkers for diagnosis of IgAN depends on applying robust and suitable models. Applying two multivariate modeling methods on a urine proteomic dataset were obtained from IgAN patients, and comparison of the results of these methods were the purpose of this study. Methods: Two models were constructed for urinary protein profiles of 13 patients and 8 healthy individuals, based on sparse linear discriminant analysis (SLDA) and elastic net (EN) regression methods. A panel of selected biomarkers with the best coefficients were proposed and further analyzed for biological relevance using functional annotation and pathway analysis. Results: Transferrin, α1-antitrypsin, and albumin fragments were the most important up-regulated biomarkers, while fibulin-5, YIP1 family member 3, prasoposin, and osteopontin were the most important down-regulated biomarkers. Pathway analysis revealed that complement and coagulation cascades and extracellular matrix-receptor interaction pathways impaired in the pathogenesis of IgAN. Conclusion: SLDA and EN had an equal importance for diagnosis of IgAN and were useful methods for exploring and processing proteomic data. In addition, the suggested biomarkers are reliable candidates for further validation to non-invasive diagnose of IgAN based on urine examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29523019PMC6305813W2896168438What 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.