Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30778835›Full record

SynthesisJournal of molecular neuroscience : MN2019

Current and Potential Approaches for Defining Disease Signatures: a Systematic Review.

Amos Stemmer, Tal Galili, Tal Kozlovski, Yoav Zeevi, Mira Marcus-Kalish, Yoav Benjamini, Alexis Mitelpunkt

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Amos StemmerSackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. amos@mail.tau.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2357-3923
Tal GaliliDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Tal KozlovskiDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Yoav ZeeviThe Sagol School for Neurosciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Mira Marcus-KalishDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Yoav BenjaminiDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Alexis MitelpunktSackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Funding

European Union Seventh Framework Programme 604102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying disease signatures in order to facilitate accurate diagnosis/treatment has been the focus of research efforts in the last decade. However, the term "disease signature" has not been properly defined, resulting in inconsistencies between studies, as well as limited ability to fully utilize the tools/information available in the evolving field of healthcare big data. Research was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The search (in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was limited to English articles published up to 31/12/2016. The search string was "disease signature" OR "disease signatures" OR "disease fingerprint" OR "disease fingerprints" OR "subtype signature" OR "subtype signatures" OR "subgroup signature" OR "subgroup signatures." The full text of the articles was reviewed to determine the meaning of the phrase "disease signature" as well as the context of its use. Of 285 articles identified in the search, 129 were included in the final analysis. The term disease signature was first found in an article from 2001. In the last 10 years, the use of the term increased by approximately ninefold, which is double the general increase in the number of published articles. Only one article attempted to define the term. The two major medical fields where the term was used were oncology (31%) and neurology (20%); 71% of the identified articles used a single biomarker to define the term, 13% of the articles used a pair of biomarkers, and 16% used signatures with multiple biomarker; in 42% of the identified articles, genomic biomarkers were used for the signature, in 17% measurements of biochemical compounds in body fluids, and in 10%, changes in imaging studies were used for the signature. Our findings identified a lack of consistency in defining the term disease signature. We suggest a novel hierarchical multidimensional concept for this term that would combine both current approaches for identifying diseases (one focusing on undesired effects of the disease and the other on its causes). This model can improve disease signature definition consistency which will enable to generalize and classify diseases, resulting in more precise treatments and better outcomes. Ultimately, this model could lead to developing a statistical confidence in a disease signature that would allow physicians/patients to estimate the precision of the diagnosis, which, in turn, may have important implications on patients' prognosis and treatment.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDiseaseBig DataGene Expression ProfilingHumansParkinson DiseaseTranscriptomeBiomarkersDisease signatureParkinson’s diseaseSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.