ArticleScientific reports2021
Machine learning random forest for predicting oncosomatic variant NGS analysis.
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 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Artificial intelligence in molecular pathology : Introduction and overview].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Mining and experimental validation of machine learning-based immune-related diagnostic biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Liquid Biopsy in Colorectal Cancer: Future Perspectives Through the Lens of Artificial Intelligence-A Comprehensive Review of Novel Literature.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- DNA sequence contamination analyzer (DNASCAN): a supervised analysis toolkit for detecting and removing DNA contaminants.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- A multi-objective optimization-driven screening approach for maximizing hydrogen storage capacities in MOFs.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Current perspectives and challenges of using artificial intelligence in immunodeficiencies.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Review
- Predicting water quality index using stacked ensemble regression and SHAP based explainable artificial intelligence.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Unraveling the Metabolic Mechanisms and Novel Biomarkers of Vulvar Lichen Simplex Chronicus Using Skin Biopsy and Tape Stripping Samples.Metabolites · 2025Article
- The impact of CNN MHAM-enhanced WRF and BPNN models for user behavior prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- From Data to Cure: A Comprehensive Exploration of Multi-omics Data Analysis for Targeted Therapies.Molecular biotechnology · 2025Review
- Bacterial diversity and biomarkers screening of station and carriage surface in Shanghai metro system, China.Current research in microbial sciences · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based prediction model for brain metastasis in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Early diagnostic model of pyonephrosis with calculi based on radiomic features combined with clinical variables.Biomedical engineering online · 2024Article
- Construction and evaluation of a liver cancer risk prediction model based on machine learning.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Lipoproteins and metabolites in diagnosing and predicting Alzheimer's disease using machine learning.Lipids in health and disease · 2024Article
- [Artificial intelligence and acute kidney injury].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Review
- Correlation between variant call accuracy and quality parameters in comprehensive cancer genomic profiling tests.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence, medications, pharmacogenomics, and ethics.Pharmacogenomics · 2024Article
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
Since 2017, we have used IonTorrent NGS platform in our hospital to diagnose and treat cancer. Analyzing variants at each run requires considerable time, and we are still struggling with some variants that appear correct on the metrics at first, but are found to be negative upon further investigation. Can any machine learning algorithm (ML) help us classify NGS variants? This has led us to investigate which ML can fit our NGS data and to develop a tool that can be routinely implemented to help biologists. Currently, one of the greatest challenges in medicine is processing a significant quantity of data. This is particularly true in molecular biology with the advantage of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for profiling and identifying molecular tumors and their treatment. In addition to bioinformatics pipelines, artificial intelligence (AI) can be valuable in helping to analyze mutation variants. Generating sequencing data from patient DNA samples has become easy to perform in clinical trials. However, analyzing the massive quantities of genomic or transcriptomic data and extracting the key biomarkers associated with a clinical response to a specific therapy requires a formidable combination of scientific expertise, biomolecular skills and a panel of bioinformatic and biostatistic tools, in which artificial intelligence is now successful in developing future routine diagnostics. However, cancer genome complexity and technical artifacts make identifying real variants challenging. We present a machine learning method for classifying pathogenic single nucleotide variants (SNVs), single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), multiple nucleotide variants (MNVs), insertions, and deletions detected by NGS from different types of tumor specimens, such as: colorectal, melanoma, lung and glioma cancer. We compared our NGS data to different machine learning algorithms using the k-fold cross-validation method and to neural networks (deep learning) to measure the performance of the different ML algorithms and determine which one is a valid model for confirming NGS variant calls in cancer diagnosis. We trained our machine learning with 70% of our data samples, extracted from our local database (our data structure had 7 parameters: chromosome, position, exon, variant allele frequency, minor allele frequency, coverage and protein description) and validated it with the 30% remaining data. The model offering the best accuracy was chosen and implemented in the NGS analysis routine. Artificial intelligence was developed with the R script language version 3.6.0. We trained our model on 70% of 102,011 variants. Our best error rate (0.22%) was found with random forest machine learning (ntree = 500 and mtry = 4), with an AUC of 0.99. Neural networks achieved some good scores. The final trained model with the neural network achieved an accuracy of 98% and an ROC-AUC of 0.99 with validation data. We tested our RF model to interpret more than 2000 variants from our NGS database: 20 variants were misclassified (error rate < 1%). The errors were nomenclature problems and false positives. After adding false positives to our training database and implementing our RF model routinely, our error rate was always < 0.5%. The RF model shows excellent results for oncosomatic NGS interpretation and can easily be implemented in other molecular biology laboratories. AI is becoming increasingly important in molecular biomedical analysis and can be very helpful in processing medical data. Neural networks show a good capacity in variant classification, and in the future, they may be useful in predicting more complex variants.
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.