ArticleJCO precision oncology2021
Making External Validation Valid for Molecular Classifier Development.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contextual evaluation of microRNA sequencing data harmonization for sample clustering.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- GRN and KLRB1 define a shared peripheral-blood transcriptomic signature linking SLE and IPF.Journal of translational autoimmunity · 2026Article
- LOXL1, THY1, and TYMS define an annotation-derived hemoglobin-associated immunotranscriptomic signature in osteoarthritis cartilage.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Integrating artificial intelligence into small molecule development for precision cancer immunomodulation therapy.npj drug discovery · 2025Review
- Which decisions affect cohort distribution in COVID-19 data analytics?AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- On data normalization and batch-effect correction for tumor subtyping with microRNA data.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2023Article
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
Abstract
purposeAccurate assessment of a molecular classifier that guides patient care is of paramount importance in precision oncology. Recent years have seen an increasing use of external validation for such assessment. However, little is known about how it is affected by ubiquitous unwanted variations in test data because of disparate experimental handling and by the use of data normalization for alleviating such variations.
methodsIn this paper, we studied these issues using two microarray data sets for the same set of tumor samples and additional data simulated by resampling under various levels of signal-to-noise ratio and different designs for array-to-sample allocation.
resultsWe showed that (1) unwanted variations can lead to biased classifier assessment and (2) data normalization mitigates the bias to varying extents depending on the specific method used. In particular, frozen normalization methods for test data outperform their conventional forms in terms of both reducing the bias in accuracy estimation and increasing robustness to handling effects. We make available our benchmarking tool as an R package on GitHub for performing such evaluation on additional methods for normalization and classification.
conclusionOur findings thus highlight the importance of proper test-data normalization for valid assessment by external validation and call for caution on the choice of normalization method for molecular classifier development.
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.