Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37941025›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2023

A comparative study of clustering methods on gene expression data for lung cancer prognosis.

Jason Z Zhang, Chi Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jason Z ZhangWake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States of America.
Chi WangMarkey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. chi.wang@uky.edu.

Funding

University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center Support Grant ECIA SupplementP30CA177558 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI Bernard Mark Evers · 2013 to 2026
$38.3M
Statistical methods for cancer progression delineation and subtype identificationR03CA259670 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI WANG, CHI · 2021 to 2022
$150k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA177558NCI NIH HHS R03 CA259670NIH HHS R03CA259670
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer subtyping based on gene expression data is important for identifying patient subgroups with differing survival prognosis to facilitate customized treatment strategies for each subtype of patients. Unsupervised clustering methods are the traditional approach for clustering patients into subtypes. However, since those methods cluster patients based only on gene expression data, the resulting clusters may not always be relevant to the survival outcome of interest. In recent years, semi-supervised and supervised methods have been proposed, which leverage the survival outcome data to identify clusters more relevant to survival prognosis. This paper aims to compare the performance of different clustering methods for identifying clinically prognostic lung cancer subtypes based on two lung adenocarcinoma datasets. For each method, we clustered patients into two clusters and assessed the difference in patient survival time between clusters. Unsupervised methods were found to have large logrank p-values and no significant results in most cases. Semi-supervised and supervised methods had improved performance over unsupervised methods and very significant p-values. These results indicate that unsupervised methods are not capable of identifying clusters with significant differences in survival prognosis in most cases, while supervised and semi-supervised methods can better cluster patients into clinically useful subtypes.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsCluster AnalysisGene ExpressionHumansClusteringComparisonGene expressionPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID37941025
PMCPMC10630994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.