ArticlePloS one2020
Identification of feature risk pathways of smoking-induced lung cancer based on SVM.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Harnessing machine learning in contemporary tobacco research.Toxicology reports · 2025Review
- Intelligent assistant diagnosis for pediatric inguinal hernia based on a multilayer and unbalanced classification model.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Implementation of PCA enabled Support Vector Machine using cytokines to differentiate smokers versus nonsmokers.Proceedings. International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence · 2021Article
- XGBoost-Based Framework for Smoking-Induced Noncommunicable Disease Prediction.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Correction: Identification of feature risk pathways of smoking-induced lung cancer based on SVM.PloS one · 2020Article
- COVID-19: The Impact in Oncology Care.SN comprehensive clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present study aims to explore the role of smoking factors in the risk of lung cancer and screen the feature risk pathways of smoking-induced lung cancer.
methodsThe expression profiles of the patient data from GEO database were standardized, and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were analyzed by limma algorithm. Samples and genes were analyzed by Unsupervised hierarchical clustering method, while GO and KEGG enrichment analyses were performed on DEGs. The data of the protein-protein interaction (PPI) network were downloaded from the BioGrid and HPRD databases, and the DEGs were mapped into the PPI network to identify the interaction relationship. The enriched significant pathways were used to calculate the anomaly score and RFE method was used to optimize the feature sets. The model was trained using the support vector machine (SVM) and the predicted results were plotted into ROC curves. The AUC value was calculated to evaluate the predictive performance of the SVM model.
resultsA total of 1923 DEGs were obtained, of which 826 were down-regulated and 1097 were up-regulated. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis showed that the diagnosis accuracy of lung cancer smokers was 74%, and that of non-lung cancer smokers was 75%. Five optimal feature pathway sets were obtained by screening, the clinical diagnostic ability of which was detected by SVM model with the accuracy improved to 84%. The diagnostic accuracy was 90% after combining clinical information.
conclusionWe verified that five signaling pathways combined with clinical information could be used as a feature risk pathway for identifying lung cancer smokers and non-lung cancer smokers and increased the diagnostic accuracy.
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.