ArticleScientific reports2023
Re-evaluation of publicly available gene-expression databases using machine-learning yields a maximum prognostic power in breast cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative single-cell analysis reveals immunogenic cell death-associated heterogeneity and identifies a robust prognostic signature in osteosarcoma with experimental validation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- The significance of molecular heterogeneity in breast cancer batch correction and dataset integration.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Towards precision therapy in HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence-based pathogenomics improves survival prediction in oral squamous cell carcinoma.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene expression signatures refer to patterns of gene activities and are used to classify different types of cancer, determine prognosis, and guide treatment decisions. Advancements in high-throughput technology and machine learning have led to improvements to predict a patient's prognosis for different cancer phenotypes. However, computational methods for analyzing signatures have not been used to evaluate their prognostic power. Contention remains on the utility of gene expression signatures for prognosis. The prevalent approaches include random signatures, expert knowledge, and machine learning to construct an improved signature. We unify these approaches to evaluate their prognostic power. Re-evaluation of publicly available gene-expression data from 8 databases with 9 machine-learning models revealed previously unreported results. Gene-expression signatures are confirmed to be useful in predicting a patient's prognosis. Convergent evidence from [Formula: see text] 10,000 signatures implicates a maximum prognostic power. By calculating the concordance index, which measures how well patients with different prognoses can be discriminated, we show that a signature can correctly discriminate patients' prognoses no more than 80% of the time. Additionally, we show that more than 50% of the potentially available information is still missing at this value. We surmise that an accurate prognosis must incorporate molecular, clinical, histological, and other complementary factors.
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.