ArticleScientific reports2022
EpICC: A Bayesian neural network model with uncertainty correction for a more accurate classification of cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- AI-based methods for the assessment of DNA damage and repair mechanisms.Frontiers in systems biology · 2026Review
- Integrating AI and RNA biomarkers in cancer: advances in diagnostics and targeted therapies.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2025Review
- Machine Learning Approaches to Prognostication in Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- MicroRNAs: circulating biomarkers for the early detection of imperceptible cancers via biosensor and machine-learning advances.Oncogene · 2024Review
- Multi-omics based artificial intelligence for cancer research.Advances in cancer research · 2024Review
- A Bayesian approach to predictive uncertainty in chemotherapy patients at risk of acute care utilization.EBioMedicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate classification of cancers into their types and subtypes holds the key for choosing the right treatment strategy and can greatly impact patient well-being. However, existence of large-scale variations in the molecular processes driving even a single type of cancer can make accurate classification a challenging problem. Therefore, improved and robust methods for classification are absolutely critical. Although deep learning-based methods for cancer classification have been proposed earlier, they all provide point estimates for predictions without any measure of confidence and thus, can fall short in real-world applications where key decisions are to be made based on the predictions of the classifier. Here we report a Bayesian neural network-based model for classification of cancer types as well as sub-types from transcriptomic data. This model reported a measure of confidence with each prediction through analysis of epistemic uncertainty. We incorporated an uncertainty correction step with the Bayesian network-based model to greatly enhance prediction accuracy of cancer types (> 97% accuracy) and sub-types (> 80%). Our work suggests that reporting uncertainty measure with each classification can enable more accurate and informed decision-making that can be highly valuable in clinical settings.
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.