Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39519384›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2024

Identification of a Novel Biomarker Panel for Breast Cancer Screening.

Maria Vaida, Kamala K Arumalla, Pavan Kumar Tatikonda, Bharadwaj Popuri, Rashid A Bux, Paramjit S Tappia, Guoyu Huang, Jean-François Haince, W Randolph Ford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

9 authors.

Maria VaidaDepartment of Analytics, Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, Harrisburg, PA 17101, USA.
Kamala K ArumallaDepartment of Analytics, Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, Harrisburg, PA 17101, USA.
Pavan Kumar TatikondaDepartment of Analytics, Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, Harrisburg, PA 17101, USA.
Bharadwaj PopuriDepartment of Analytics, Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, Harrisburg, PA 17101, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2979-5199
Rashid A BuxBioMark Diagnostics Inc., Richmond, BC V6X 2W2, Canada.
Paramjit S TappiaAsper Clinical Research Institute, Winnipeg, MB R2H 2A6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8307-2760
Guoyu HuangBioMark Diagnostic Solutions Inc., Quebec City, QC G1P 4P5, Canada.ORCID 0009-0004-5854-9482
Jean-François HainceBioMark Diagnostic Solutions Inc., Quebec City, QC G1P 4P5, Canada.ORCID 0009-0002-5261-9967
W Randolph FordDepartment of Analytics, Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, Harrisburg, PA 17101, USA.

Funding

Biomark Diagnostics Inc. (Richmond, BC, Canada), Maunders-McNeil Foundation (Ed-monton, AB, Canada) N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer remains a major public health concern, and early detection is crucial for improving survival rates. Metabolomics offers the potential to develop non-invasive screening and diagnostic tools based on metabolic biomarkers. However, the inherent complexity of metabolomic datasets and the high dimensionality of biomarkers complicates the identification of diagnostically relevant features, with multiple studies demonstrating limited consensus on the specific metabolites involved. Unlike previous studies that rely on singular feature selection techniques such as Partial Least Square (PLS) or LASSO regression, this research combines supervised and unsupervised machine learning methods with random sampling strategies, offering a more robust and interpretable approach to feature selection. This study aimed to identify a parsimonious and robust set of biomarkers for breast cancer diagnosis using metabolomics data. Plasma samples from 185 breast cancer patients and 53 controls (from the Cooperative Human Tissue Network, USA) were analyzed. This study also overcomes the common issue of dataset imbalance by using propensity score matching (PSM), which ensures reliable comparisons between cancer and control groups. We employed Univariate Naïve Bayes, L2-regularized Support Vector Classifier (SVC), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and feature engineering techniques to refine and select the most informative features. Our best-performing feature set comprised 11 biomarkers, including 9 metabolites (SM(OH) C22:2, SM C18:0, C0, C3OH, C14:2OH, C16:2OH, LysoPC a C18:1, PC aa C36:0 and Asparagine), a metabolite ratio (Kynurenine-to-Tryptophan), and 1 demographic variable (Age), achieving an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 98%. These results demonstrate the potential for a robust, cost-effective, and non-invasive breast cancer screening and diagnostic tool, offering significant clinical value for early detection and personalized patient management.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMetabolomicsAdultAgedBayes TheoremCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrincipal Component AnalysisBiomarkers, Tumorbiomarkersbreast cancerearly detectionmachine learningmetabolomic profilingscreening

Identifiers

PMID39519384
PMCPMC11546995

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.