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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting
Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1997) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 · Cited by 20,466
Breiman, L. (1996) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00058655 · Cited by 16,325
Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer
Petricoin, E. F., Ardekani, A. M., Hitt, B. A., Levine, P. J., Fusaro, V. A., Steinberg, S. M., Mills, G. B., Simone, C., Fishman, D. A., Kohn, E. C., et al. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07746-2 · Cited by 3,236
Self-citation
Cited by
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0016973 · Cited by 2,583
Comparing protein abundance and mRNA expression levels on a genomic scale
Greenbaum, D. (2003) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2003-4-9-117 · Cited by 1,692
Machine learning in bioinformatics
Larrañaga, P., Calvo, B., Santana, R., Bielza, C., Galdiano, J., Inza, I., Lozano, J. A., Armañanzas, R., Santafé, G., Pérez, A., et al. (2006) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbk007 · Cited by 867
A Review of Ensemble Methods in Bioinformatics
Yang, P., Hwa Yang, Y., B. Zhou, B., & Y. Zomaya, A. (2010) · Current Bioinformatics · doi:10.2174/157489310794072508 · Cited by 503
Fan, Y., Murphy, T. B., Byrne, J. C., Brennan, L., Fitzpatrick, J. M., & Watson, R. W. G. (2011) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr1011069 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, B., Abbott, T., Fishman, D., McMurray, W., Mor, G., Stone, K., Ward, D., Williams, K., & Zhao, H.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.