ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019
Statistical representation models for mutation information within genomic data.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- BKDRP: a biological knowledge-driven approach for drug response prediction using multi-omics data in cancer cell lines.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Using, misusing, and improving online machine learning-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging published data: A perspective on NeuroQuery.Neuroimage. Reports · 2026Article
- GNNMutation: a heterogeneous graph-based framework for cancer detection.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Deep learning and multi-omics approach to predict drug responses in cancer.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Sagacious epitope selection for vaccines, and both antibody-based therapeutics and diagnostics: tips from virology and oncology.Antibody therapeutics · 2022Review
- A novel gene selection method for gene expression data for the task of cancer type classification.Biology direct · 2021Article
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
backgroundAs DNA sequencing technologies are improving and getting cheaper, genomic data can be utilized for diagnosis of many diseases such as cancer. Human raw genome data is huge in size for computational systems. Therefore, there is a need for a compact and accurate representation of the valuable information in DNA. The occurrence of complex genetic disorders often results from multiple gene mutations. The effect of each mutation is not equal for the development of a disease. Inspired from the field of information retrieval, we propose using the term frequency (tf) and BM25 term weighting measures with the inverse document frequency (idf) and relevance frequency (rf) measures to weight genes based on their mutations. The underlying assumption is that the more mutations a gene has in patients with a certain disease and the less mutations it has in other patients, the more discriminative that gene is.
resultsWe evaluated the proposed representations on the task of cancer type classification. We applied various machine learning techniques using the tf-idf and tf-rf schemes and their BM25 versions. Our results show that the BM25-tf-rf representation leads to improved classification accuracy and f-score values compared to the other representations. The highest accuracy (76.44%) and f-score (76.95%) are achieved with the BM25-tf-rf based data representation.
conclusionsAs a result of our experiments, the BM25-tf-rf scheme and the proposed neural network model is shown to be the best performing classification system for our case study of cancer type classification. This system is further utilized for causal gene analysis. Examples from the most effective genes that are used for decision making are found to be in the literature as target or causal genes.
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.