Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 741

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tissue Classification with Gene Expression Profiles

Ben-Dor, Amir, Bruhn, Laurakay, Friedman, Nir, Nachman, Iftach, Schummer, Michèl, Yakhini, Zohar·2000·Journal of Computational Biology

Abstract

Constantly improving gene expression profiling technologies are expected to provide understanding and insight into cancer-related cellular processes. Gene expression data is also expected to significantly aid in the development of efficient cancer diagnosis and classification platforms. In this work we examine three sets of gene expression data measured across sets of tumor(s) and normal clinical samples: The first set consists of 2,000 genes, measured in 62 epithelial colon samples (Alon et al., 1999). The second consists of approximately equal to 100,000 clones, measured in 32 ovarian samples (unpublished extension of data set described in Schummer et al. (1999)). The third set consists of approximately equal to 7,100 genes, measured in 72 bone marrow and peripheral blood samples (Golub et al, 1999). We examine the use of scoring methods, measuring separation of tissue type (e.g., tumors from normals) using individual gene expression levels. These are then coupled with high-dimensional classification methods to assess the classification power of complete expression profiles. We present results of performing leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) experiments on the three data sets, employing nearest neighbor classifier, SVM (Cortes and Vapnik, 1995), AdaBoost (Freund and Schapire, 1997) and a novel clustering-based classification technique. As tumor samples can differ from normal samples in their cell-type composition, we also perform LOOCV experiments using appropriately modified sets of genes, attempting to eliminate the resulting bias. We demonstrate success rate of at least 90% in tumor versus normal classification, using sets of selected genes, with, as well as without, cellular-contamination-related members. These results are insensitive to the exact selection mechanism, over a certain range.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/106652700750050943

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 741

Metadata

Authors
Ben-Dor, A., Bruhn, L., Friedman, N., Nachman, I., Schummer, M., & Yakhini, Z.
Venue
Journal of Computational Biology
Published
2000-08
Volume
7
Issue
3-4
Pages
559-583
ISSN
  • 1066-5277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8666
OpenAlex
W2611104316
Cited by
741
References
4
FWCI
13.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tissue Classification with Gene Expression Profiles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/106652700750050943
The paper
Ben-Dor, A., Bruhn, L., Friedman, N., Nachman, I., Schummer, M., & Yakhini, Z. (2000). Tissue Classification with Gene Expression Profiles. Journal of Computational Biology. https://doi.org/10.1089/106652700750050943

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.