↓ Skip to main content

Patient-Specific Data Fusion Defines Prognostic Cancer Subtypes

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
citeulike
8 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
Patient-Specific Data Fusion Defines Prognostic Cancer Subtypes
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002227
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yinyin Yuan, Richard S. Savage, Florian Markowetz

Abstract

Different data types can offer complementary perspectives on the same biological phenomenon. In cancer studies, for example, data on copy number alterations indicate losses and amplifications of genomic regions in tumours, while transcriptomic data point to the impact of genomic and environmental events on the internal wiring of the cell. Fusing different data provides a more comprehensive model of the cancer cell than that offered by any single type. However, biological signals in different patients exhibit diverse degrees of concordance due to cancer heterogeneity and inherent noise in the measurements. This is a particularly important issue in cancer subtype discovery, where personalised strategies to guide therapy are of vital importance. We present a nonparametric Bayesian model for discovering prognostic cancer subtypes by integrating gene expression and copy number variation data. Our model is constructed from a hierarchy of Dirichlet Processes and addresses three key challenges in data fusion: (i) To separate concordant from discordant signals, (ii) to select informative features, (iii) to estimate the number of disease subtypes. Concordance of signals is assessed individually for each patient, giving us an additional level of insight into the underlying disease structure. We exemplify the power of our model in prostate cancer and breast cancer and show that it outperforms competing methods. In the prostate cancer data, we identify an entirely new subtype with extremely poor survival outcome and show how other analyses fail to detect it. In the breast cancer data, we find subtypes with superior prognostic value by using the concordant results. These discoveries were crucially dependent on our model's ability to distinguish concordant and discordant signals within each patient sample, and would otherwise have been missed. We therefore demonstrate the importance of taking a patient-specific approach, using highly-flexible nonparametric Bayesian methods.

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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 149 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 23%
Student > Master 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Professor 10 6%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 28%
Computer Science 36 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 13%
Mathematics 15 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 18 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 April 2023.
All research outputs
#17,313,103
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,488
of 8,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,353
of 151,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#87
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,976 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 151,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.