Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33228632›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2020

A random forest based biomarker discovery and power analysis framework for diagnostics research.

Animesh Acharjee, Joseph Larkman, Yuanwei Xu, Victor Roth Cardoso, Georgios V Gkoutos

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A Five-Plasma Protein-Based Algorithm for Predicting Incident CKD in Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Animesh AcharjeeCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Centre for Computational Biology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. a.acharjee@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2735-7010
Joseph LarkmanCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Centre for Computational Biology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Yuanwei XuCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Centre for Computational Biology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Victor Roth CardosoCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Centre for Computational Biology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Georgios V GkoutosCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Centre for Computational Biology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiomarker identification is one of the major and important goal of functional genomics and translational medicine studies. Large scale -omics data are increasingly being accumulated and can provide vital means for the identification of biomarkers for the early diagnosis of complex disease and/or for advanced patient/diseases stratification. These tasks are clearly interlinked, and it is essential that an unbiased and stable methodology is applied in order to address them. Although, recently, many, primarily machine learning based, biomarker identification approaches have been developed, the exploration of potential associations between biomarker identification and the design of future experiments remains a challenge.

methodsIn this study, using both simulated and published experimentally derived datasets, we assessed the performance of several state-of-the-art Random Forest (RF) based decision approaches, namely the Boruta method, the permutation based feature selection without correction method, the permutation based feature selection with correction method, and the backward elimination based feature selection method. Moreover, we conducted a power analysis to estimate the number of samples required for potential future studies.

resultsWe present a number of different RF based stable feature selection methods and compare their performances using simulated, as well as published, experimentally derived, datasets. Across all of the scenarios considered, we found the Boruta method to be the most stable methodology, whilst the Permutation (Raw) approach offered the largest number of relevant features, when allowed to stabilise over a number of iterations. Finally, we developed and made available a web interface ( https://joelarkman.shinyapps.io/PowerTools/ ) to streamline power calculations thereby aiding the design of potential future studies within a translational medicine context.

conclusionsWe developed a RF-based biomarker discovery framework and provide a web interface for our framework, termed PowerTools, that caters the design of appropriate and cost-effective subsequent future omics study.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiomarkersDecision TreesMachine LearningMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesComputer SimulationDatasets as TopicHumansLipidomicsMetabolomicsRegression AnalysisSample SizeTranscriptomeWorkflowBiomarkersBiomarkerFeature selectionPower studyRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID33228632
PMCPMC7685541

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.