MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319453476 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-1998

Abstract 1998: A <i>sparse</i> prognostic gene signature for stage IB and II patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer

2010· article· en· W2319453476 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Twumasi‐Ankrah, Keyue Ding, Lesley Seymour, Frances A. Shepherd, Ming‐Sound Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene signatureOverfittingGeneMicroarray analysis techniquesNormalization (sociology)Gene expressionUnivariateProportional hazards modelComputational biologyFalse discovery rateMicroarrayGene expression profilingSignificance analysis of microarraysBiologyComputer scienceMultivariate statisticsMedicineGeneticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In the statistical analysis of gene expression data, the concept sparsity of expression signature suggests that patterns of variation in expression for a larger gene set, G, could be predicted by a smaller subset of genes, g. This may be an oversimplifies the biomedical reality but a simple and meaningful model reduces the risk of overfitting and produces results which are easier to interpret. Here, we extract a sparse gene signature from the set of informative genes, and establish a functional relation between the selected genes and survival. Methods: Microarray analysis was conducted on extracted mRNA from 62 frozen JBR.10 tumor samples from patients who had undergone complete tumor resection using the Affymetrix U133A oligonucleotide microarray. We performed the following analyses on the data: (a) First, the affymetrix CEL data was processed by the BRB ArrayTools version 3.8.0. Data normalization and background correction to adjust for differences in labeling intensities was done by the GCRMA algorithm [1]. Genes showing minimal variation across arrays with expression differing by at least 1.5 fold from the median in less than 20% of the arrays were excluded from the analysis. (b) The ensuing probe sets were interrogated to identify genes whose expression was significantly related to patient survival by computing for each gene, a univariate proportional hazards models [2] evaluated at a significance threshold of 5%. (c) A sparse gene-set was then obtained from the genes correlated with survival by a multivariate Cox regression with an elastic-net [3] constraint on the regression coefficients. (d) Finally, the sparse gene-set was used to derive risk scores for all patients. Median of the risk scores was used to classify patients into low and high risk groups. Results: From the list of 8141 probe sets that passed the filtering criteria, 310 genes were significant at 0.05 level in the univariate analyses. The sparse gene-sets of 7 was obtained by applying the elastic-net variable selection and dimensionality reduction algorithm. The estimate of risk ratio associated with the high risk group versus the low risk group is 8.9 (95% CI: 3.4 − 23.5) with a p-value of 1.172*10−7 from the logrank test. Conclusions: The sparse gene-set provides an efficient set of genes that may be prognostic in patients with completely resected stage IB and Stage II non-small cell lung cancer. Validation is required in independent data sets. References: 1. Wu Z, Irizarry RA., Gentleman R, Murillo FM, Spencer F. (2004). A Model Based Background Adjustment for Oligonucleotide Expression Arrays. J. Amer. Statistical Assoc., 99(468): 909-917. 2. Cox DR. (1972.). Regression models and life-tables (with discussion). J. Roy. Statistical Society B, 34:187-220. 3. Zou H, Hastie TJR. (2005) Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J. Roy. Statistical Society B 67(2): 301-320. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1998.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207