ArticleMedicine2018
Comprehensive assessment gene signatures for clear cell renal cell carcinoma prognosis.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review of Prognostic Expression Markers for Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Antioxidant Gene Signature Impacts the Immune Infiltration and Predicts the Prognosis of Kidney Renal Clear Cell Carcinoma.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Identification of prognostic gene biomarkers for metastatic skin cancer using data mining.Biomedical reports · 2020Article
- Comprehensive analysis of somatic copy number alterations in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.Molecular carcinogenesis · 2020Article
- IGFLR1 as a Novel Prognostic Biomarker in Clear Cell Renal Cell Cancer Correlating With Immune Infiltrates.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Article
- Article
- MUDENG Expression Profiling in Cohorts and Brain Tumor Biospecimens to Evaluate Its Role in Cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are many prognostic gene signature models in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, different results from various methods and samples are hard to contribute to clinical practice. It is necessary to develop a robust gene signature for improving clinical practice in ccRCC.A method was proposed to integrate least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and multiple Cox regression to obtain mRNA and microRNA signature from the cancer genomic atlas database for predicting prognosis of ccRCC. The gene signature model consisted by 5 mRNAs and 1 microRNA was identified. Prognosis index (PI) model was constructed from RNA expression and median value of PI is used to classified patients into high- and low-risk groups.The results showed that high-risk patients showed significantly decrease survival comparison with low-risk groups [hazard ratio (HR) =7.13, 95% confidence interval = 3.71-13.70, P < .001]. As the gene signature was mainly consisted by mRNA, the validation data can use transcriptomic data to verify. For comparison of the performance with previous works, other gene signature models and 4 datasets of ccRCC were retrieved from publications and public database. For estimating PI in each model, 3 indicators including HR, concordance index , and the area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic for 3 years were calculated across 4 independent datasets.The comparison results showed that the integrative model from our study was more robust than other models via comprehensive analysis. These findings provide some genes for further study their functions and mechanisms in ccRCC tumorigenesis and malignance, and may be useful for effective clinical decision making of ccRCC patients.
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.