Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32111152›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020

Comparison of pathway and gene-level models for cancer prognosis prediction.

Xingyu Zheng, Christopher I Amos, H Robert Frost

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. GRPa-PRS: A risk stratification method to identify genetically-regulated pathways in polygenic diseases.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Xingyu ZhengDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA.
Christopher I AmosDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA.
H Robert FrostDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA. hildreth.r.frost@dartmouth.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6794-9945

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Zhao - Proj 2P20GM130454 · NIGMS · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI MICHAEL L WHITFIELD · 2019 to 2026
$27.2M
Coordinating Center: Molecular and Cellular Findings of Screen-Detected LesionsU01CA196386 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI AMOS, CHRISTOPHER I. · 2015 to 2020
$4.1M
Tissue-specific gene set testingK01LM012426 · NLM · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI FROST, HILDRETH · 2016 to 2018
$259k
Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas RR170048NCI NIH HHS CA023108NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS U01 CA196386NCI NIH HHS U01CA196386NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM130454NIGMS NIH HHS P20GM130454NLM NIH HHS K01 LM012426U.S. National Library of Medicine 1K01LM012426
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer prognosis prediction is valuable for patients and clinicians because it allows them to appropriately manage care. A promising direction for improving the performance and interpretation of expression-based predictive models involves the aggregation of gene-level data into biological pathways. While many studies have used pathway-level predictors for cancer survival analysis, a comprehensive comparison of pathway-level and gene-level prognostic models has not been performed. To address this gap, we characterized the performance of penalized Cox proportional hazard models built using either pathway- or gene-level predictors for the cancers profiled in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and pathways from the Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB).

resultsWhen analyzing TCGA data, we found that pathway-level models are more parsimonious, more robust, more computationally efficient and easier to interpret than gene-level models with similar predictive performance. For example, both pathway-level and gene-level models have an average Cox concordance index of ~ 0.85 for the TCGA glioma cohort, however, the gene-level model has twice as many predictors on average, the predictor composition is less stable across cross-validation folds and estimation takes 40 times as long as compared to the pathway-level model. When the complex correlation structure of the data is broken by permutation, the pathway-level model has greater predictive performance while still retaining superior interpretative power, robustness, parsimony and computational efficiency relative to the gene-level models. For example, the average concordance index of the pathway-level model increases to 0.88 while the gene-level model falls to 0.56 for the TCGA glioma cohort using survival times simulated from uncorrelated gene expression data.

conclusionThe results of this study show that when the correlations among gene expression values are low, pathway-level analyses can yield better predictive performance, greater interpretative power, more robust models and less computational cost relative to a gene-level model. When correlations among genes are high, a pathway-level analysis provides equivalent predictive power compared to a gene-level analysis while retaining the advantages of interpretability, robustness and computational efficiency.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesGene ExpressionGliomaHumansModels, GeneticNeoplasmsPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsCancer prognosis predictionGene expression dataInter-gene correlationL1 penalized regression modelPathway analysis

Identifiers

PMID32111152
PMCPMC7048092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.