Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32637048›Full record

ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2020

Comparison of unsupervised machine-learning methods to identify metabolomic signatures in patients with localized breast cancer.

Jocelyn Gal, Caroline Bailleux, David Chardin, Thierry Pourcher, Julia Gilhodes, Lun Jing, Jean-Marie Guigonis, Jean-Marc Ferrero, Gerard Milano, Baharia Mograbi and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06183944 (Data Clustering Study With Artificial Intelligence and Phenotyping of Patients Who Presented With Acute Pulmonary Embolism), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT06183944 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Data Clustering Study With Artificial Intelligence and Phenotyping of Patients Who Presented With Acute Pulmonary Embolism

TypeobservationalSponsorCentre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Toulon La Seyne sur MerRan2023 to 2026Enrolled2,350ConditionsPulmonary EmbolismArmsHierarchical clustering methods
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Assessment of transformer-based AI in clinical oncology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Advancements in Cancer Survival Prediction: A Systematic Review of Classical and Modern Approaches.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. A review on trends in development and translation of omics signatures in cancer.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

Jocelyn GalUniversity Côte d'Azur, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice F-06189, France.
Caroline BailleuxUniversity Côte d'Azur, Medical Oncology Department Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice F-06189, France.
David ChardinUniversity Côte d'Azur, Nuclear Medicine Department, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice F-06189, France.
Thierry PourcherUniversity Côte d'Azur, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Institut de Biosciences et Biotechnologies d'Aix-Marseille, Laboratory Transporters in Imaging and Radiotherapy in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Nice F-06100, France.
Julia GilhodesDepartment of Biostatistics, Institut Claudius Regaud, IUCT-O Toulouse, France.
Lun JingUniversity Côte d'Azur, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Institut de Biosciences et Biotechnologies d'Aix-Marseille, Laboratory Transporters in Imaging and Radiotherapy in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Nice F-06100, France.
Jean-Marie GuigonisUniversity Côte d'Azur, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Institut de Biosciences et Biotechnologies d'Aix-Marseille, Laboratory Transporters in Imaging and Radiotherapy in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Nice F-06100, France.
Jean-Marc FerreroUniversity Côte d'Azur, Medical Oncology Department Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice F-06189, France.
Gerard MilanoUniversity Côte d'Azur, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Oncopharmacology Unit, Nice F-06189, France.
Baharia MograbiUniversity Côte d'Azur, CNRS UMR7284, INSERM U1081, IRCAN TEAM4 Centre Antoine Lacassagne FHU-Oncoage, Nice F-06189, France.
Patrick BrestUniversity Côte d'Azur, CNRS UMR7284, INSERM U1081, IRCAN TEAM4 Centre Antoine Lacassagne FHU-Oncoage, Nice F-06189, France.
Yann ChateauUniversity Côte d'Azur, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice F-06189, France.
Olivier HumbertUniversity Côte d'Azur, Nuclear Medicine Department, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice F-06189, France.
Emmanuel ChamoreyUniversity Côte d'Azur, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice F-06189, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomics and transcriptomics have led to the widely-used molecular classification of breast cancer (BC). However, heterogeneous biological behaviors persist within breast cancer subtypes. Metabolomics is a rapidly-expanding field of study dedicated to cellular metabolisms affected by the environment. The aim of this study was to compare metabolomic signatures of BC obtained by 5 different unsupervised machine learning (ML) methods. Fifty-two consecutive patients with BC with an indication for adjuvant chemotherapy between 2013 and 2016 were retrospectively included. We performed metabolomic profiling of tumor resection samples using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Here, four hundred and forty-nine identified metabolites were selected for further analysis. Clusters obtained using 5 unsupervised ML methods (PCA k-means, sparse k-means, spectral clustering, SIMLR and k-sparse) were compared in terms of clinical and biological characteristics. With an optimal partitioning parameter k = 3, the five methods identified three prognosis groups of patients (favorable, intermediate, unfavorable) with different clinical and biological profiles. SIMLR and K-sparse methods were the most effective techniques in terms of clustering.

Indexed as

Breast neoplasmsComputer simulationMetabolomicsUnsupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID32637048
PMCPMC7327012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.