ArticleFrontiers in genetics2021
Breast Cancer Case Identification Based on Deep Learning and Bioinformatics Analysis.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complete NUB1 depletion in ER - negative breast cancer progression in paired primary-metastatic cases: a case series.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Article
- RNA-seq analysis identifies key genes and signaling pathways involved in androgen promotion of sebaceous gland proliferation in Hetian sheep.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Identification of candidate biomarkers correlated with the pathogenesis of breast cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Short-term exposure to ethanol induces transcriptional changes in nontumorigenic breast cells.FEBS open bio · 2023Article
- A bio-inspired convolution neural network architecture for automatic breast cancer detection and classification using RNA-Seq gene expression data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Machine learning-based immune prognostic model and ceRNA network construction for lung adenocarcinoma.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Accurate breast cancer diagnosis using a stable feature ranking algorithm.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Applying a GAN-based classifier to improve transcriptome-based prognostication in breast cancer.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Deep Learning Using Multiple Degrees of Maximum-Intensity Projection for PET/CT Image Classification in Breast Cancer.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Breast Cancer Subtype Prediction Model Employing Artificial Neural Network andJournal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mastering the molecular mechanism of breast cancer (BC) can provide an in-depth understanding of BC pathology. This study explored existing technologies for diagnosing BC, such as mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) and summarized the disadvantages of the existing cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this article is to use gene expression profiles of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) to classify BC samples and normal samples. The method proposed in this article triumphs over some of the shortcomings of traditional diagnostic methods and can conduct BC diagnosis more rapidly with high sensitivity and have no radiation. This study first selected the genes most relevant to cancer through weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) and differential expression analysis (DEA). Then it used the protein-protein interaction (PPI) network to screen 23 hub genes. Finally, it used the support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), Bayesian network (BN), artificial neural network (ANN), convolutional neural network CNN-LeNet and CNN-AlexNet to process the expression levels of 23 hub genes. For gene expression profiles, the ANN model has the best performance in the classification of cancer samples. The ten-time average accuracy is 97.36% (±0.34%), the F1 value is 0.8535 (±0.0260), the sensitivity is 98.32% (±0.32%), the specificity is 89.59% (±3.53%) and the AUC is 0.99. In summary, this method effectively classifies cancer samples and normal samples and provides reasonable new ideas for the early diagnosis of cancer in the future.
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.