↓ Skip to main content

Current composite-feature classification methods do not outperform simple single-genes classifiers in breast cancer prognosis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
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
Current composite-feature classification methods do not outperform simple single-genes classifiers in breast cancer prognosis
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2013.00289
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Staiger, Sidney Cadot, Balázs Györffy, Lodewyk F. A. Wessels, Gunnar W. Klau

Abstract

Integrating gene expression data with secondary data such as pathway or protein-protein interaction data has been proposed as a promising approach for improved outcome prediction of cancer patients. Methods employing this approach usually aggregate the expression of genes into new composite features, while the secondary data guide this aggregation. Previous studies were limited to few data sets with a small number of patients. Moreover, each study used different data and evaluation procedures. This makes it difficult to objectively assess the gain in classification performance. Here we introduce the Amsterdam Classification Evaluation Suite (ACES). ACES is a Python package to objectively evaluate classification and feature-selection methods and contains methods for pooling and normalizing Affymetrix microarrays from different studies. It is simple to use and therefore facilitates the comparison of new approaches to best-in-class approaches. In addition to the methods described in our earlier study (Staiger et al., 2012), we have included two prominent prognostic gene signatures specific for breast cancer outcome, one more composite feature selection method and two network-based gene ranking methods. Employing the evaluation pipeline we show that current composite-feature classification methods do not outperform simple single-genes classifiers in predicting outcome in breast cancer. Furthermore, we find that also the stability of features across different data sets is not higher for composite features. Most stunningly, we observe that prediction performances are not affected when extracting features from randomized PPI networks.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Hungary 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 40 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 34%
Researcher 11 25%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Professor 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 13 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 6 14%
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 23 December 2013.
All research outputs
#20,215,721
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#8,548
of 11,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,825
of 280,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#263
of 319 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 319 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.