ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2018
Species translatable blood gene signature as a marker of exposure to smoking: computational approaches of the top ranked teams in the sbv IMPROVER Systems Toxicology challenge.
Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of differential DNA methylation analysis methods for continuous outcomes: implications for epigenetic studies.Epigenomics · 2026Article
- Targeted expression profiling by RNA-Seq improves detection of cellular dynamics during pregnancy and identifies a role for T cells in term parturition.Scientific reports · 2019Article
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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Crowdsourcing has been used to address computational challenges in systems biology and assess translation of findings across species. Sub-challenge 2 of the sbv IMPROVER Systems Toxicology Challenge was designed to determine whether a common set of genes can be used to identify exposure to cigarette smoke in both human and mouse. Participating teams used a training set of human and mouse blood gene expression data to derive parsimonious models (up to 40 genes) that classify subjects into exposure groups: smokers, former smokers, and never-smokers. Teams were ranked based on two classification performance metrics evaluated on a blinded test dataset. Prediction of current exposure to cigarette smoke in human and mouse by a common prediction model was achieved by the top ranked team (Team 219) with 89% balanced accuracy (BAC), while past exposure was predicted with only 57% BAC. The prediction model of the top ranked team was a random forest classifier trained on sets of genes that appeared best for each species separately with no overlap between species. By contrast, Team 264, ranked second (tied with Team 250), selected genes that were simultaneously predictive in both species and achieved 80% and 59% BAC when predicting current and past exposure, respectively. These performance values were lower than the 96.5% and 61% BAC estimates for current and past exposure, respectively, obtained by Team 264 (top ranked in sub-challenge 1) when using only human data. Unlike past exposure, current exposure to cigarette smoke can be accurately assessed in both human and mouse with a common prediction model based on blood mRNAs. However, requiring a
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.