Cited by 77Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentGene expression and cancer classification

Applying random forests to identify biomarker panels in serum 2D-DIGE data for the detection and staging of prostate cancer

Fan, Yue, Murphy, Thomas Brendan, Byrne, Jennifer C., Brennan, Lorraine, Fitzpatrick, John M., Watson, R. William G.·2011·Journal of Proteome Research

Abstract

In recent years, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing is widespread and has been associated with deceased mortality rates; however, this testing has raised concerns of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. It is clear that additional biomarkers are required. To identify these biomarkers, we have undertaken proteomics and metabolomics expression profiles of serum samples from BPH, Gleason score 5 and 7 using two-dimensional difference in gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR). Panels of serum protein biomarkers were identified by applying Random Forests to the 2D-DIGE data. The evaluation of selected biomarker panels has shown that they can provide higher prediction accuracy than the current diagnostic standard. With careful validation of these serum biomarker panels, these panels may potentially help to reduce unnecessary invasive diagnostic procedures and more accurately direct the urologist to curative surgery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/pr1011069

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Metabolomics and proteomics have been integrated using RF for prostate cancer and thyroid functioning.

    “Metabolomics and proteomics have been integrated using RF for analysis of prostate cancer (Fan et al., 2011) and thyroid functioning (Pietzner et al., 2017).”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Fan et al., 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fan, Y., Murphy, T. B., Byrne, J. C., Brennan, L., Fitzpatrick, J. M., & Watson, R. W. G.
Affiliations
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • Mater Misericordiae University Hospital (IE)
Corresponding author
Watson, R. William G.
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2011-01-27
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
1361-1373
ISSN
  • 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-3907
OpenAlex
W2325347090
Cited by
77
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Proteome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
prostate cancer, serum biomarker panel, random forest, 2D-DIGE, prostate-specific antigen, benign prostatic hyperplasia, Gleason score, tumor staging, cancer detection, overdiagnosis, serum proteomics, NMR metabolomics
MeSH terms
Humans, Male, Neoplasm Staging, Prostatic Neoplasms, Mass Spectrometry, Biomarkers, Tumor, Reproducibility of Results, Cluster Analysis, Area Under Curve, Two-Dimensional Difference Gel Electrophoresis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review