ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026
Dimensionality reduction and metabolite panel derivation in urinary metabolomics based on Random Forest with Gini index feature selection.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Untargeted urinary metabolomics represents a promising approach for investigating metabolic alterations associated with oncogenic processes such as breast cancer (BC). However, the stable selection of informative m/z features remains a central challenge in biomarker-oriented studies, particularly in the context of early BC detection and population-level screening. Urine samples from two independent cohorts (n = 50 and n = 75) and analyzed using distinct UHPLC-QTOF-ESI⁺ mass spectrometry workflows, yielded 224 and 129 aligned m/z features, respectively. Classification and embedded feature selection were implemented within a leakage-controlled Random Forest (RF) framework using Gini index-based importance ranking. Model evaluation incorporated repeated train-test splits and cross-validation to ensure methodological rigor and minimize overfitting. By consistently applying the same RF-based analytical framework to two analytically distinct cohorts generated under different chromatographic separation conditions, we demonstrate that a unified supervised strategy can achieve comparably high classification performance despite differences in feature dimensionality. Further, controlled dimensionality reduction identified compact panels of 25 m/z features per cohort while preserving classification performance. Importantly, stability was maintained after feature reduction, with strong accuracy, F1 scores, and receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall characteristics observed in both full and reduced models. This cross-cohort consistency indicates that the discriminative signal captured by the RF approach is not cohort-specific nor dependent on a particular separation workflow, but rather reflects reproducible metabolic patterns associated with BC. The stability of feature selection was further supported by substantial overlap between RF-derived Gini importance rankings and variable importance in projection (VIP) scores obtained from partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) in MetaboAnalyst 5.0, indicating concordance across distinct supervised multivariate frameworks. Collectively, these findings highlight the advantage of a unified, supervised tree-based strategy capable of delivering stable classification and interpretable dimensionality reduction across independent untargeted metabolomics platforms, providing a structured and transferable framework for metabolomics-driven biomarker discovery and future clinical validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42684414What 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.