Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29801433›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

polyClustR: defining communities of reconciled cancer subtypes with biological and prognostic significance.

Katherine Eason, Gift Nyamundanda, Anguraj Sadanandam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. 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

3 authors.

Katherine EasonDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London, UK.
Gift NyamundandaDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London, UK.
Anguraj SadanandamDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London, UK. Anguraj.Sadanandam@icr.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8485-5150

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo ensure cancer patients are stratified towards treatments that are optimally beneficial, it is a priority to define robust molecular subtypes using clustering methods applied to high-dimensional biological data. If each of these methods produces different numbers of clusters for the same data, it is difficult to achieve an optimal solution. Here, we introduce "polyClustR", a tool that reconciles clusters identified by different methods into subtype "communities" using a hypergeometric test or a measure of relative proportion of common samples.

resultsThe polyClustR pipeline was initially tested using a breast cancer dataset to demonstrate how results are compatible with and add to the understanding of this well-characterised cancer. Two uveal melanoma datasets were then utilised to identify and validate novel subtype communities with significant metastasis-free prognostic differences and associations with known chromosomal aberrations.

conclusionWe demonstrate the value of the polyClustR approach of applying multiple consensus clustering algorithms and systematically reconciling the results in identifying novel subtype communities of two cancer types, which nevertheless are compatible with established understanding of these diseases. An R implementation of the pipeline is available at: https://github.com/syspremed/polyClustR.

Indexed as

SoftwareAlgorithmsBreast NeoplasmsCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansMelanomaNeoplasmsPrognosisUveal MelanomaUveal NeoplasmsBreast cancerClustering methodsHierarchical clusteringHypergeometric testK-means clusteringNetwork analysisNon-negative matrix factorizationReconciliation methodsSubtype communityUveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID29801433
PMCPMC5970540

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.