ArticleFrontiers in genetics2021
Comparison of Methods for Feature Selection in Clustering of High-Dimensional RNA-Sequencing Data to Identify Cancer Subtypes.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- DriverSub-SVM: a machine learning approach for cancer subtype classification by integrating patient-specific and global driver genes.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Tumor subtype classification tool for HPV-associated head and neck cancers.Oral oncology · 2025Article
- Molecular Phenogroups in Heart Failure: Large-Scale Proteomics in a Population-Based Cohort.Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2025Article
- Utilizing Feature Selection Techniques for AI-Driven Tumor Subtype Classification: Enhancing Precision in Cancer Diagnostics.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Classification of Long Non-Coding RNAs s Between Early and Late Stage of Liver Cancers From Non-coding RNA Profiles Using Machine-Learning Approach.Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2024Article
- Comparison of cancer subtype identification methods combined with feature selection methods in omics data analysis.BioData mining · 2023Article
- Entropy sorting of single-cell RNA sequencing data reveals the inner cell mass in the human pre-implantation embryo.Stem cell reports · 2023Article
- A new gene-scoring method for uncovering novel glaucoma-related genes using non-negative matrix factorization based on RNA-seq data.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Investigation of the Role of PUFA Metabolism in Breast Cancer Using a Rank-Based Random Forest Algorithm.Cancers · 2022Article
- Novel feature selection methods for construction of accurate epigenetic clocks.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
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
Cancer subtype identification is important to facilitate cancer diagnosis and select effective treatments. Clustering of cancer patients based on high-dimensional RNA-sequencing data can be used to detect novel subtypes, but only a subset of the features (e.g., genes) contains information related to the cancer subtype. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the clustering should be based on a set of carefully selected features rather than all features. Several feature selection methods have been proposed, but how and when to use these methods are still poorly understood. Thirteen feature selection methods were evaluated on four human cancer data sets, all with known subtypes (gold standards), which were only used for evaluation. The methods were characterized by considering mean expression and standard deviation (SD) of the selected genes, the overlap with other methods and their clustering performance, obtained comparing the clustering result with the gold standard using the adjusted Rand index (ARI). The results were compared to a supervised approach as a positive control and two negative controls in which either a random selection of genes or all genes were included. For all data sets, the best feature selection approach outperformed the negative control and for two data sets the gain was substantial with ARI increasing from (-0.01, 0.39) to (0.66, 0.72), respectively. No feature selection method completely outperformed the others but using the dip-rest statistic to select 1000 genes was overall a good choice. The commonly used approach, where genes with the highest SDs are selected, did not perform well in our study.
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.