ArticleBioData mining2025
An ensemble machine learning-based performance evaluation identifies top In-Silico pathogenicity prediction methods that best classify driver mutations in cancer.
Article in BioData mining, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveAccurate identification and prioritization of driver-mutations in cancer is critical for effective patient management. Despite the presence of numerous bioinformatic algorithms for estimating mutation pathogenicity, there is significant variation in their assessments. This inconsistency is evident even for well-established cancer driver mutations. This study aims to develop an ensemble machine learning approach to evaluate the performance (rank) of pathogenic and conservation scoring algorithms (PCSAs) based on their ability to distinguish pathogenic driver mutations from benign passenger (non-driver) mutations in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSC).
methodsThe study used a dataset from 502 HNSC patients, classifying mutations based on 299 known high-confidence cancer driver genes. Missense somatic mutations in driver genes were treated as driver mutations, while non-driver mutations were randomly selected from other genes. Each mutation was annotated with 41 PCSAs. Three machine learning algorithms-logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine-along with recursive feature elimination, were used to rank these PCSAs. The final ranking of the PCSAs was determined using rank-average-sort and rank-sum-sort methods.
resultsThe random forest algorithm emerged as the top performer among the three tested ML algorithms, with an AUC-ROC of 0.89, compared to 0.83 for the other two, in distinguishing pathogenic driver mutations from benign passenger mutations using all 41 PCSAs. The top 11 PCSAs were selected based on the first quintile cut-off from the final rank-sum distribution. Classifiers built using these top 11 PCSAs (DEOGEN2, Integrated_fitCons, MVP, etc.) demonstrated significantly higher performance (p-value < 2.22e-16) compared to those using the remaining 30 PCSAs across all three ML algorithms, in separating pathogenic driver from benign passenger mutations. The top PCSAs demonstrated strong performance on a validation cohort including independent HNSC and other cancer types: breast, lung, and colorectal - reflecting its consistency, robustness and generalizability.
conclusionsThe ensemble machine learning approach effectively evaluates the performance of PCSAs based on their ability to differentiate pathogenic drivers from benign passenger mutations in HNSC and other cancer types. Notably, some well-known PCSAs performed poorly, underscoring the importance of data-driven selection over relying solely on popularity.
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.