Uncovering the roles of microRNAs/lncRNAs in characterising breast cancer subtypes and prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate prognosis and identification of cancer subtypes at molecular level are important steps towards effective and personalised treatments of breast cancer. To this end, many computational methods have been developed to use gene (mRNA) expression data for breast cancer subtyping and prognosis. Meanwhile, microRNAs (miRNAs) and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been extensively studied in the last 2 decades and their associations with breast cancer subtypes and prognosis have been evidenced. However, it is not clear whether using miRNA and/or lncRNA expression data helps improve the performance of gene expression based subtyping and prognosis methods, and this raises challenges as to how and when to use these data and methods in practice. RESULTS: In this paper, we conduct a comparative study of 35 methods, including 12 breast cancer subtyping methods and 23 breast cancer prognosis methods, on a collection of 19 independent breast cancer datasets. We aim to uncover the roles of miRNAs and lncRNAs in breast cancer subtyping and prognosis from the systematic comparison. In addition, we created an R package, CancerSubtypesPrognosis, including all the 35 methods to facilitate the reproducibility of the methods and streamline the evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The experimental results show that integrating miRNA expression data helps improve the performance of the mRNA-based cancer subtyping methods. However, miRNA signatures are not as good as mRNA signatures for breast cancer prognosis. In general, lncRNA expression data does not help improve the mRNA-based methods in both cancer subtyping and cancer prognosis. These results suggest that the prognostic roles of miRNA/lncRNA signatures in the improvement of breast cancer prognosis needs to be further verified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".