Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30066910›Full record

ArticleMolecular medicine reports2018

A random forest classifier predicts recurrence risk in patients with ovarian cancer.

Li Cheng, Lin Li, Liling Wang, Xiaofang Li, Hui Xing, Jinting Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A practical recurrence risk model based on Lasso-Cox regression for gastric cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

6 authors.

Li ChengDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xiangyang Central Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Arts and Science), Xiangyang, Hubei 441021, P.R. China.
Lin LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xiangyang Central Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Arts and Science), Xiangyang, Hubei 441021, P.R. China.
Liling WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xiangyang Central Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Arts and Science), Xiangyang, Hubei 441021, P.R. China.
Xiaofang LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xiangyang Central Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Arts and Science), Xiangyang, Hubei 441021, P.R. China.
Hui XingDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xiangyang Central Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Arts and Science), Xiangyang, Hubei 441021, P.R. China.
Jinting ZhouDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xiangyang Central Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Arts and Science), Xiangyang, Hubei 441021, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ovarian cancer (OC) is associated with a poor prognosis due to difficulties in early detection. The aims of the present study were to construct a recurrence risk prediction model and to reveal important OC genes or pathways. RNA sequencing data was obtained for 307 OC samples, and the corresponding clinical data were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas database. Additionally, two validation datasets, GSE44104 (20 recurrent and 40 non‑recurrent OC samples) and GSE49997 (204 OC samples), were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Differentially expressed genes were screened using the differential expression via distance synthesis algorithm, followed by gene ontology enrichment analysis and weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA). Furthermore, subnetwork analysis was conducted for the protein‑protein interaction (PPI) network using the BioNet package. Finally, a random forest classifier was constructed based on the subnetwork nodes, and its reliability was validated using the GSE44104 and GSE49997 validation datasets. A total of 44 upregulated and 117 downregulated genes were identified in the recurrent samples. Enrichment analysis indicated that cytochrome P450 family 17 subfamily A member 1 (CYP17A1) was associated with 'positive regulation of steroid hormone biosynthetic processes'. WGCNA identified turquoise and grey modules that were significantly correlated with status and prognosis. A significant PPI subnetwork containing 16 nodes was also identified, including: Transcription factor GATA‑4; fibroblast growth factor 9; aromatase; 3β‑hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase/δ5‑4‑isomerase type 2; corticosteroid 11β‑dehydrogenase isozyme 1; CYP17A1; pituitary homeobox 2; left‑right determination factor 1; homeobox protein ARX; estrogen receptor β; steroidogenic factor 1; forkhead box protein L2; myocardin; steroidogenic acute regulatory protein mitochondrial; vesicular inhibitory amino acid transporter; and twist‑related protein 1. A random forest classifier was constructed using the subnetwork nodes as feature genes, which exhibited a 92% true positive rate when classifying recurrent and non‑recurrent OC samples. The classifying efficiency of the random forest classifier was validated using the two other independent datasets. Overall, 44 upregulated and 117 downregulated genes associated with OC recurrence were identified. Furthermore, the 16 subnetwork node genes that were identified may be important molecules in OC recurrence.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticDatabases, GeneticFemaleGene OntologyGene Regulatory NetworksHumansOvarian NeoplasmsRecurrenceReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID30066910
PMCPMC6102638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.