Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38235353›Full record

ArticleCurrent genomics2023

Identification of Plausible Candidates in Prostate Cancer Using Integrated Machine Learning Approaches.

Bhumandeep Kour, Nidhi Shukla, Harshita Bhargava, Devendra Sharma, Amita Sharma, Anjuvan Singh, Jayaraman Valadi, Trilok Chand Sadasukhi, Sugunakar Vuree, Prashanth Suravajhala

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Bhumandeep KourDepartment of Biotechnology, Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, Punjab, India.
Nidhi ShuklaBioclues.org, India.
Harshita BhargavaDepartment of Computer Science, IIS University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Devendra SharmaUrology and Renal Transplant Department of Renal Sciences, Rukmani Birla Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Amita SharmaDepartment of Computer Science, IIS University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Anjuvan SinghDepartment of Biotechnology, School of Bioengineering and Biosciences, Lovely Professional University, Punjab, Phagwara, 144001, India.
Jayaraman ValadiDepartment of Computer Science, FLAME University, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Trilok Chand SadasukhiDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplant, Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Sugunakar VureeBioclues.org, India.
Prashanth SuravajhalaBioclues.org, India.
Inspiration Innovation Synergy University · INLovely Professional University · INAmrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham · INBirla Institute of Scientific Research · INFlame University · INMahatma Gandhi University · INMNR Medical College and Hospital · INSujata Birla Hospital and Medical Research Center · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Currently, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is commonly used as a prostate cancer (PCa) biomarker. PSA is linked to some factors that frequently lead to erroneous positive results or even needless biopsies of elderly people. Objectives: In this pilot study, we undermined the potential genes and mutations from several databases and checked whether or not any putative prognostic biomarkers are central to the annotation. The aim of the study was to develop a risk prediction model that could help in clinical decision-making. Methods: An extensive literature review was conducted, and clinical parameters for related comorbidities, such as diabetes, obesity, as well as PCa, were collected. Such parameters were chosen with the understanding that variations in their threshold values could hasten the complicated process of carcinogenesis, more particularly PCa. The gathered data was converted to semi-binary data (-1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, and 1), on which machine learning (ML) methods were applied. First, we cross-checked various publicly available datasets, some published RNA-seq datasets, and our whole-exome sequencing data to find common role players in PCa, diabetes, and obesity. To narrow down their common interacting partners, interactome networks were analysed using GeneMANIA and visualised using Cytoscape, and later cBioportal was used (to compare expression level based on Z scored values) wherein various types of mutation w.r.t their expression and mRNA expression (RNA seq FPKM) plots are available. The GEPIA 2 tool was used to compare the expression of resulting similarities between the normal tissue and TCGA databases of PCa. Later, top-ranking genes were chosen to demonstrate striking clustering coefficients using the Cytoscape-cytoHubba module, and GEPIA 2 was applied again to ascertain survival plots. Results: Comparing various publicly available datasets, it was found that BLM is a frequent player in all three diseases, whereas comparing publicly available datasets, GWAS datasets, and published sequencing findings, SPFTPC and PPIMB were found to be the most common. With the assistance of GeneMANIA, TMPO and FOXP1 were found as common interacting partners, and they were also seen participating with BLM. Conclusion: A probabilistic machine learning model was achieved to identify key candidates between diabetes, obesity, and PCa. This, we believe, would herald precision scale modeling for easy prognosis.

Indexed as

bioinformaticsbiomarkerscBioPortalmachine learningprostate cancerProstate-Specific Antigens (PSA)

Identifiers

PMID38235353
PMCPMC10790336
OpenAlexW4388910895

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.