Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 478

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of statistical methods for classification of ovarian cancer using mass spectrometry data

Open access
Wu, Baolin, Abbott, Tom, Fishman, David, McMurray, Walter, Mor, Gil, Stone, Kathryn, Ward, David, Williams, Kenneth, Zhao, Hongyu·2003·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: Novel methods, both molecular and statistical, are urgently needed to take advantage of recent advances in biotechnology and the human genome project for disease diagnosis and prognosis. Mass spectrometry (MS) holds great promise for biomarker identification and genome-wide protein profiling. It has been demonstrated in the literature that biomarkers can be identified to distinguish normal individuals from cancer patients using MS data. Such progress is especially exciting for the detection of early-stage ovarian cancer patients. Although various statistical methods have been utilized to identify biomarkers from MS data, there has been no systematic comparison among these approaches in their relative ability to analyze MS data. Results: We compare the performance of several classes of statistical methods for the classification of cancer based on MS spectra. These methods include: linear discriminant analysis, quadratic discriminant analysis, k-nearest neighbor classifier, bagging and boosting classification trees, support vector machine, and random forest (RF). The methods are applied to ovarian cancer and control serum samples from the National Ovarian Cancer Early Detection Program clinic at Northwestern University Hospital. We found that RF outperforms other methods in the analysis of MS data. Supplementary information: http://bioinformatics.med.yale.edu/proteomics/BioSupp1.html

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg210

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 478

Metadata

Authors
Wu, B., Abbott, T., Fishman, D., McMurray, W., Mor, G., Stone, K., Ward, D., Williams, K., & Zhao, H.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2003-09-01
Volume
19
Issue
13
Pages
1636-1643
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2128589733
Cited by
478
References
3
FWCI
10.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Comparison of statistical methods for classification of ovarian cancer using mass spectrometry data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg210
The paper
Wu, B., Abbott, T., Fishman, D., McMurray, W., Mor, G., Stone, K., Ward, D., Williams, K., & Zhao, H. (2003). Comparison of statistical methods for classification of ovarian cancer using mass spectrometry data. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg210

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.