ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2022
RadSigBench: a framework for benchmarking functional genomics signatures of cancer cell radiosensitivity.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward trustworthy artificial intelligence in multi-omics: a review of reproducibility, stability, and interpretability.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Clinical Biomarkers of Tumour Radiosensitivity and Predicting Benefit from Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Validation of In Vitro Trained Transcriptomic Radiosensitivity Signatures in Clinical Cohorts.Cancers · 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
Multiple transcriptomic predictors of tumour cell radiosensitivity (RS) have been proposed, but they have not been benchmarked against one another or to control models. To address this, we present RadSigBench, a comprehensive benchmarking framework for RS signatures. The approach compares candidate models to those developed from randomly resampled control signatures and from cellular processes integral to the radiation response. Robust evaluation of signature accuracy, both overall and for individual tissues, is performed. The NCI60 and Cancer Cell Line Encyclopaedia datasets are integrated into our workflow. Prediction of two measures of RS is assessed: survival fraction after 2 Gy and mean inactivation dose. We apply the RadSigBench framework to seven prominent published signatures of radiation sensitivity and test for equivalence to control signatures. The mean out-of-sample R2 for the published models on test data was very poor at 0.01 (range: -0.05 to 0.09) for Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia and 0.00 (range: -0.19 to 0.19) in the NCI60 data. The accuracy of both published and cellular process signatures investigated was equivalent to the resampled controls, suggesting that these signatures contain limited radiation-specific information. Enhanced modelling strategies are needed for effective prediction of intrinsic RS to inform clinical treatment regimes. We make recommendations for methodological improvements, for example the inclusion of perturbation data, multiomics, advanced machine learning and mechanistic modelling. Our validation framework provides for robust performance assessment of ongoing developments in intrinsic RS prediction.
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.