ArticleScientific reports2021
GVES: machine learning model for identification of prognostic genes with a small dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unraveling the copper-death connection: Decoding COVID-19's immune landscape through advanced bioinformatics and machine learning approaches.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Advances in the field of developing biomarkers for re-irradiation: a how-to guide to small, powerful data sets and artificial intelligence.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2024Article
- The Utility of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cancer.Cureus · 2023Review
- Accurate Prediction of Cancer Prognosis by Exploiting Patient-Specific Cancer Driver Genes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation of checkpoint genes on the tumour side of the immunological synapse.Heredity · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer.Theranostics · 2022Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning may be a powerful approach to more accurate identification of genes that may serve as prognosticators of cancer outcomes using various types of omics data. However, to date, machine learning approaches have shown limited prediction accuracy for cancer outcomes, primarily owing to small sample numbers and relatively large number of features. In this paper, we provide a description of GVES (Gene Vector for Each Sample), a proposed machine learning model that can be efficiently leveraged even with a small sample size, to increase the accuracy of identification of genes with prognostic value. GVES, an adaptation of the continuous bag of words (CBOW) model, generates vector representations of all genes for all samples by leveraging gene expression and biological network data. GVES clusters samples using their gene vectors, and identifies genes that divide samples into good and poor outcome groups for the prediction of cancer outcomes. Because GVES generates gene vectors for each sample, the sample size effect is reduced. We applied GVES to six cancer types and demonstrated that GVES outperformed existing machine learning methods, particularly for cancer datasets with a small number of samples. Moreover, the genes identified as prognosticators were shown to reside within a number of significant prognostic genetic pathways associated with pancreatic cancer.
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.