Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34322589›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2021

Machine learning analysis of TCGA cancer data.

Jose Liñares-Blanco, Alejandro Pazos, Carlos Fernandez-Lozano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Jose Liñares-BlancoCITIC-Research Center of Information and Communication Technologies, University of A Coruna, A Coruña, Spain.
Alejandro PazosCITIC-Research Center of Information and Communication Technologies, University of A Coruna, A Coruña, Spain.
Carlos Fernandez-LozanoCITIC-Research Center of Information and Communication Technologies, University of A Coruna, A Coruña, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0413-5677

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, machine learning (ML) researchers have changed their focus towards biological problems that are difficult to analyse with standard approaches. Large initiatives such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) have allowed the use of omic data for the training of these algorithms. In order to study the state of the art, this review is provided to cover the main works that have used ML with TCGA data. Firstly, the principal discoveries made by the TCGA consortium are presented. Once these bases have been established, we begin with the main objective of this study, the identification and discussion of those works that have used the TCGA data for the training of different ML approaches. After a review of more than 100 different papers, it has been possible to make a classification according to following three pillars: the type of tumour, the type of algorithm and the predicted biological problem. One of the conclusions drawn in this work shows a high density of studies based on two major algorithms: Random Forest and Support Vector Machines. We also observe the rise in the use of deep artificial neural networks. It is worth emphasizing, the increase of integrative models of multi-omic data analysis. The different biological conditions are a consequence of molecular homeostasis, driven by both protein coding regions, regulatory elements and the surrounding environment. It is notable that a large number of works make use of genetic expression data, which has been found to be the preferred method by researchers when training the different models. The biological problems addressed have been classified into five types: prognosis prediction, tumour subtypes, microsatellite instability (MSI), immunological aspects and certain pathways of interest. A clear trend was detected in the prediction of these conditions according to the type of tumour. That is the reason for which a greater number of works have focused on the BRCA cohort, while specific works for survival, for example, were centred on the GBM cohort, due to its large number of events. Throughout this review, it will be possible to go in depth into the works and the methodologies used to study TCGA cancer data. Finally, it is intended that this work will serve as a basis for future research in this field of study.

Indexed as

BRCACancerData integrationMachine learningMulti-omicsRandom ForestSupport Vector MachinesTCGA

Identifiers

PMID34322589
PMCPMC8293929

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.