↓ Skip to main content

Integration and comparison of different genomic data for outcome prediction in cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BioData Mining, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Integration and comparison of different genomic data for outcome prediction in cancer
Published in
BioData Mining, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13040-015-0065-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugo Gómez-Rueda, Emmanuel Martínez-Ledesma, Antonio Martínez-Torteya, Rebeca Palacios-Corona, Victor Trevino

Abstract

In cancer, large-scale technologies such as next-generation sequencing and microarrays have produced a wide number of genomic features such as DNA copy number alterations (CNA), mRNA expression (EXPR), microRNA expression (MIRNA), and DNA somatic mutations (MUT), among others. Several analyses of a specific type of these genomic data have generated many prognostic biomarkers in cancer. However, it is uncertain which of these data is more powerful and whether the best data-type is cancer-type dependent. Therefore, our purpose is to characterize the prognostic power of models obtained from different genomic data types, cancer types, and algorithms. For this, we compared the prognostic power using the concordance and prognostic index of models obtained from EXPR, MIRNA, CNA, MUT data and their integration for ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma (OV), multiform glioblastoma (GBM), lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), and breast cancer (BRCA) datasets from The Cancer Genome Atlas repository. We used three different algorithms for prognostic model selection based on constrained particle swarm optimization (CPSO), network feature selection (NFS), and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). The integration of the four genomic data produced models having slightly higher performance than any single genomic data. From the genomic data types, we observed better prediction using EXPR closely followed by MIRNA and CNA depending on the cancer type and method. We observed higher concordance index in BRCA, followed by LUAD, OV, and GBM. We observed very similar results between LASSO and CPSO but smaller values in NFS. Importantly, we observed that model predictions highly concur between algorithms but are highly discordant between data types, which seems to be dependent on the censoring rate of the dataset. Gene expression (mRNA) generated higher performances, which is marginally improved when other type of genomic data is considered. The level of concordance in prognosis generated from different genomic data types seems to be dependent on censoring rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 63 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 15%
Computer Science 9 14%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 10 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2016.
All research outputs
#4,682,911
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from BioData Mining
#109
of 313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,810
of 285,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioData Mining
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,880 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.