Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41444897›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2025

The significance of molecular heterogeneity in breast cancer batch correction and dataset integration.

Nicholas Moir, Dominic A Pearce, Simon P Langdon, T Ian Simpson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Nicholas MoirApplied Bioinformatics of Cancer, University of Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, Edinburgh, UK.
Dominic A PearceFios Genomics, Bioquarter, 13 Little France Rd., Edinburgh, UK.
Simon P LangdonEdinburgh Cancer Research and Edinburgh Pathology, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
T Ian SimpsonSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. ian.simpson@ed.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer research benefits from a substantial collection of gene expression datasets that are commonly integrated for subsequent computational analysis. Gene expression batch effects arising between experimental batches, where technical signal differences confound true biological variation, must be addressed when integrating datasets. Several approaches exist to address these batch effect differences.

findingsThis brief report clearly demonstrates that popular batch correction techniques can significantly distort vital biomarker expression signals. Through the implementation of batch correction and visualisation of integrated expression values, we profile the extent of these distortions and evaluate different variations of Combat batch correction on key breast cancer biomarker expression values.

conclusionsThe diversity of breast cancer as a molecularly heterogenous disease is well recognised. The potential impact of this heterogeneity on vital dataset processing and downstream evaluation remains under-evaluated. We believe this short study presents the first analysis of the interplay between dataset molecular composition and concomitant robustness of integrated, batch-corrected expression signal of breast cancer biomarker expression.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsGene Expression ProfilingGenetic HeterogeneityComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticFemaleGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansBiomarkers, TumorBatch correctionBiomarker fidelityBreast cancerDataset integrationGene expressionMolecular heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID41444897
PMCPMC12729297

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.