↓ Skip to main content

A Critical Evaluation of Network and Pathway-Based Classifiers for Outcome Prediction in Breast Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
citeulike
5 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
A Critical Evaluation of Network and Pathway-Based Classifiers for Outcome Prediction in Breast Cancer
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0034796
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Staiger, Sidney Cadot, Raul Kooter, Marcus Dittrich, Tobias Müller, Gunnar W. Klau, Lodewyk F. A. Wessels

Abstract

Recently, several classifiers that combine primary tumor data, like gene expression data, and secondary data sources, such as protein-protein interaction networks, have been proposed for predicting outcome in breast cancer. In these approaches, new composite features are typically constructed by aggregating the expression levels of several genes. The secondary data sources are employed to guide this aggregation. Although many studies claim that these approaches improve classification performance over single genes classifiers, the gain in performance is difficult to assess. This stems mainly from the fact that different breast cancer data sets and validation procedures are employed to assess the performance. Here we address these issues by employing a large cohort of six breast cancer data sets as benchmark set and by performing an unbiased evaluation of the classification accuracies of the different approaches. Contrary to previous claims, we find that composite feature classifiers do not outperform simple single genes classifiers. We investigate the effect of (1) the number of selected features; (2) the specific gene set from which features are selected; (3) the size of the training set and (4) the heterogeneity of the data set on the performance of composite feature and single genes classifiers. Strikingly, we find that randomization of secondary data sources, which destroys all biological information in these sources, does not result in a deterioration in performance of composite feature classifiers. Finally, we show that when a proper correction for gene set size is performed, the stability of single genes sets is similar to the stability of composite feature sets. Based on these results there is currently no reason to prefer prognostic classifiers based on composite features over single genes classifiers for predicting outcome in breast cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
United States 2 2%
Slovenia 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 86 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 27%
Researcher 26 27%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Professor 5 5%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 29%
Computer Science 24 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Mathematics 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 15 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 May 2012.
All research outputs
#14,737,203
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#122,998
of 193,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,195
of 163,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,250
of 3,700 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 163,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,700 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.