ArticleHeliyon2024
Identification of lysosome-related hub genes as potential biomarkers and immune infiltrations of moyamoya disease by multiple bioinformatics methods and machine-learning strategies.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
- Molecular and multimodal biomarkers in Moyamoya disease: from pathogenic mechanisms to clinical translation.European journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Angiogenesis-related genes and immune microenvironment in moyamoya disease: a transcriptomic and functional analysis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Prognostic and predictive value of pathohistological features in gastric cancer and identification of SLITRK4 as a potential biomarker for gastric cancer.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Moyamoya disease (MMD), characterized by chronic cerebrovascular pathology, poses a rare yet significant clinical challenge, associated with elevated rates of mortality and disability. Despite intensive research endeavors, the exact biomarkers driving its pathogenesis remain enigmatic. Methods: The expression patterns of GSE189993 and GSE141022 were retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) repository to procure differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between samples afflicted with MMD and those under control conditions. The Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), Support Vector Machine with Recursive Feature Elimination (SVM-RFE), and Random Forest (RF) algorithms were employed for identifying candidate diagnostic genes associated with MMD. Subsequently, these candidate genes underwent validation in an independent cohort (GSE157628). The CMAP database was ultimately employed to forecast drugs pertinent to MMD for clinical translation. Results: A collective of 240 DEGs were discerned. Functional enrichment scrutiny unveiled the enrichment of the cholesterol metabolism pathway, salmonella infection pathway, and allograft rejection pathway within the MMD cohort. EPDR1, DENND3, and NCSTN emerged as discerned diagnostic biomarkers for MMD. The CMAP database was ultimately employed to scrutinize the ten most auspicious pharmaceutical compounds for managing MMD. Finally, after validation through in vitro experiments, EPDR1, DENND3, and NCSTN were identified as the key genes. Conclusion: EPDR1, DENND3, and NCSTN have emerged as potential novel biomarkers for MMD. The involvement of T lymphocytes, neutrophilic granulocytes, dendritic cells, natural killer cells, and plasma cells could be pivotal in the pathogenesis and advancement of MMD.
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.