ArticleAging2019
Predicting chromosome 1p/19q codeletion by RNA expression profile: a comparison of current prediction models.
Article in Aging, 2019. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of tumor-associated reactive astrocytes in gliomas by single-cell and bulk tumor sequencing.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- RNA editing-based classification of diffuse gliomas: predicting isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation and chromosome 1p/19q codeletion.BMC bioinformatics · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChromosome 1p/19q codeletion is increasingly being recognized as the crucial genetic marker for glioma patients and have been included in WHO classification of glioma in 2016. Fluorescent in situ hybridization, a widely used method in detecting 1p/19q status, has some methodological limitations which might influence the clinical management for doctors. Here, we attempted to explore an RNA sequencing computational method to detect 1p/19q status.
methodsWe included 692 samples with 1p/19q status information from TCGA cohort as training set and 222 samples with 1p/19q status information from REMBRANDT cohort as validation set. We reviewed and compared five tools: TSPairs, GSVA, PAM, Caret, smoother, with respect to their accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.
resultsIn TCGA cohort, the GSVA method showed the highest accuracy (98.4%) in predicting 1p/19q status (sensitivity=95.5%, specificity=99.6%) and smoother method showed the second-highest accuracy (accuracy=97.8%, sensitivity=96.4%, specificity=98.3%). While in REMBRANDT cohort, smoother method exhibited the highest accuracy (98.6%) (sensitivity= 96.7%, specificity=98.9%) in 1p/19q status prediction.
conclusionsOur independent assessment of five tools revealed that smoother method was selected as the most stable and accurate method in predicting 1p/19q status. This method could be regarded as a potential alternative method for clinical practice in future.
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.