ArticleGenes & genomics2019
Identification of tissue-specific tumor biomarker using different optimization algorithms.
Article in Genes & genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying candidate biomarkers for detecting bronchogenic carcinoma stages using metaheuristic algorithms based on information fusion theory.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- A Neural Network Framework for Predicting the Tissue-of-Origin of 15 Common Cancer Types Based on RNA-Seq Data.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- A Novel XGBoost Method to Identify Cancer Tissue-of-Origin Based on Copy Number Variations.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- In silico markers: an evolutionary and statistical approach to select informative genes of human breast cancer subtypes.Genes & genomics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentification of differentially expressed genes, i.e., genes whose transcript abundance level differs across different biological or physiological conditions, was indeed a challenging task. However, the inception of transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq) technology revolutionized the simultaneous measurement of the transcript abundance levels for thousands of genes.
objectiveIn this paper, such next-generation sequencing (NGS) data is used to identify biomarker signatures for several of the most common cancer types (bladder, colon, kidney, brain, liver, lung, prostate, skin, and thyroid)
methodsHere, the problem is mapped into the comparison of optimization algorithms for selecting a set of genes that lead to the highest classification accuracy of a two-class classification task between healthy and tumor samples. As the optimization algorithms Artificial Bee Colony (ABC), Ant Colony Optimization, Differential Evolution, and Particle Swarm Optimization are chosen for this experiment. A standard statistical method called DESeq2 is used to select differentially expressed genes before being feed to the optimization algorithms. Classification of healthy and tumor samples is done by support vector machine
resultsCancer-specific validation yields remarkably good results in terms of accuracy. Highest classification accuracy is achieved by the ABC algorithm for Brain lower grade glioma data is 99.10%. This validation is well supported by a statistical test, gene ontology enrichment analysis, and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis for each cancer biomarker signature
conclusionThe current study identified robust genes as biomarker signatures and these identified biomarkers might be helpful to accurately identify tumors of unknown origin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30535858What 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.