ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Gene signatures for cancer research: A 25-year retrospective and future avenues.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inclusion of Multi-Omic Biomarkers Improves Prediction Accuracy of Response, Relapse, and Overall Survival in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Receiving High-Intensity Induction Chemotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Context defines precision: rethinking KRAS inhibition in oncology.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Review
- Targeting organelle function in T cells for cancer immunotherapy.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2026Review
- Machine learning prioritization identifies PANX1 as an inflammation-associated candidate regulator in lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Predicting Treatment Outcomes in Glioblastoma: A Risk Score Model for TMZ Resistance and Immune Checkpoint Inhibition.Biology · 2025Article
- Review
- Prognostic biomarkers in oral squamous cell carcinoma: current evidence and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Bladder cancer biomarkers: current approaches and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past two decades, extensive studies, particularly in cancer analysis through large datasets like The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), have aimed at improving patient therapies and precision medicine. However, limited overlap and inconsistencies among gene signatures across different cohorts pose challenges. The dynamic nature of the transcriptome, encompassing diverse RNA species and functional complexities at gene and isoform levels, introduces intricacies, and current gene signatures face reproducibility issues due to the unique transcriptomic landscape of each patient. In this context, discrepancies arising from diverse sequencing technologies, data analysis algorithms, and software tools further hinder consistency. While careful experimental design, analytical strategies, and standardized protocols could enhance reproducibility, future prospects lie in multiomics data integration, machine learning techniques, open science practices, and collaborative efforts. Standardized metrics, quality control measures, and advancements in single-cell RNA-seq will contribute to unbiased gene signature identification. In this perspective article, we outline some thoughts and insights addressing challenges, standardized practices, and advanced methodologies enhancing the reliability of gene signatures in disease transcriptomic research.
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.