Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32832541›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2020

Microarray Normalization Revisited for Reproducible Breast Cancer Biomarkers.

Michael Kenn, Dan Cacsire Castillo-Tong, Christian F Singer, Michael Cibena, Heinz Kölbl, Wolfgang Schreiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Michael KennSection of Biosimulation and Bioinformatics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems (CeMSIIS), Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Dan Cacsire Castillo-TongTranslational Gynecology Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Christian F SingerDepartment of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1294-0027
Michael CibenaSection of Biosimulation and Bioinformatics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems (CeMSIIS), Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7500-0916
Heinz KölblDepartment of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Wolfgang SchreinerSection of Biosimulation and Bioinformatics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems (CeMSIIS), Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1910-5788

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision medicine for breast cancer relies on biomarkers to select therapies. However, the reliability of biomarkers drawn from gene expression arrays has been questioned and calls for reassessment, in particular for large datasets. We revisit widely used data-normalization procedures and evaluate differences in outcome in order to pinpoint the most reliable reprocessing methods biomarkers can be based upon. We generated a database of 3753 breast cancer patients out of 38 studies by downloading and curating patient samples from NCBI-GEO. As gene-expression biomarkers, we select the assessment of receptor status and breast cancer subtype classification. Each normalization procedure is applied separately, and biomarkers are then evaluated for each patient. Differences between normalization pipelines are quantified as percentages of patients having outcomes different for each pipeline. Some normalization procedures lead to quite consistent biomarkers, differing only in 1-2% of patients. Other normalization procedures-some of them have been used in many clinical studies-end up with distrusting discrepancies (10% and more). A good deal of doubt regarding the reliability of microarrays may root in the haphazard application of inadequate preprocessing pipelines. Several modes of batch corrections are evaluated regarding a possible improvement of receptor prediction from gene expression versus the golden standard of immunohistochemistry. Finally, we nominate those normalization methods yielding consistent and trustable results. Adequate bioinformatics data preprocessing is key and crucial for any subsequent statistics to arrive at trustable results. We conclude with a suggestion for future bioinformatics development to further increase the reliability of cancer biomarkers.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsComputational BiologyDatabases, Nucleic AcidGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisFemaleHumansBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID32832541
PMCPMC7428878

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.