ArticleArXiv2025
Association of normalization, non-differentially expressed genes and data source with machine learning performance in intra-dataset or cross-dataset modelling of transcriptomic and clinical data.
Article in ArXiv, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cross-dataset testing is critical for examining machine learning (ML) model's performance. However, most studies on modelling transcriptomic and clinical data only conducted intra-dataset testing. It is also unclear whether normalization and non-differentially expressed genes (NDEG) can improve cross-dataset modeling performance of ML. We thus aim to understand whether normalization, NDEG and data source are associated with performance of ML in cross-dataset testing. The transcriptomic and clinical data shared by the lung adenocarcinoma cases in TCGA and ONCOSG were used. The best cross-dataset ML performance was reached using transcriptomic data alone and statistically better than those using transcriptomic and clinical data. The best balance accuracy (BA), area under curve (AUC) and accuracy were significantly better in ML algorithms training on TCGA and tested on ONCOSG than those trained on ONCOSG and tested on TCGA (p<0.05 for all). Normalization and NDEG greatly improved intra-dataset ML performances in both datasets, but not in cross-dataset testing. Strikingly, modelling transcriptomic data of ONCOSG alone outperformed modelling transcriptomic and clinical data whereas including clinical data in TCGA did not significantly impact ML performance, suggesting limited clinical data value or an overwhelming influence of transcriptomic data in TCGA. Performance gains in intra-dataset testing were more pronounced for ML models trained on ONCOSG than TCGA. Among the six ML models compared, Support vector machine was the most frequent best-performer in both intra-dataset and cross-dataset testing. Therefore, our data show data source, normalization and NDEG are associated with intra-dataset and cross-dataset ML performance in modelling transcriptomic and clinical data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40061123PMC11888557What 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.