The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Google Goes Cancer: Improving Outcome Prediction for Cancer Patients by Network-Based Ranking of Marker Genes
Open accessAbstract
Predicting the clinical outcome of cancer patients based on the expression of marker genes in their tumors has received increasing interest in the past decade. Accurate predictors of outcome and response to therapy could be used to personalize and thereby improve therapy. However, state of the art methods used so far often found marker genes with limited prediction accuracy, limited reproducibility, and unclear biological relevance. To address this problem, we developed a novel computational approach to identify genes prognostic for outcome that couples gene expression measurements from primary tumor samples with a network of known relationships between the genes. Our approach ranks genes according to their prognostic relevance using both expression and network information in a manner similar to Google's PageRank. We applied this method to gene expression profiles which we obtained from 30 patients with pancreatic cancer, and identified seven candidate marker genes prognostic for outcome. Compared to genes found with state of the art methods, such as Pearson correlation of gene expression with survival time, we improve the prediction accuracy by up to 7%. Accuracies were assessed using support vector machine classifiers and Monte Carlo cross-validation. We then validated the prognostic value of our seven candidate markers using immunohistochemistry on an independent set of 412 pancreatic cancer samples. Notably, signatures derived from our candidate markers were independently predictive of outcome and superior to established clinical prognostic factors such as grade, tumor size, and nodal status. As the amount of genomic data of individual tumors grows rapidly, our algorithm meets the need for powerful computational approaches that are key to exploit these data for personalized cancer therapies in clinical practice.
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
Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines
Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S., & Vapnik, V. (2002) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1012487302797 · Cited by 9,954
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., & Thun, M. J. (2009) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20006 · Cited by 9,709
Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer
van 't Veer, L. J., Dai, H., van de Vijver, M. J., He, Y. D., Hart, A. A. M., Mao, M., Peterse, H. L., van der Kooy, K., Marton, M. J., Witteveen, A. T., et al. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415530a · Cited by 9,536
The STATs of cancer — new molecular targets come of age
Yu, H., & Jove, R. (2004) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc1275 · Cited by 2,278
Gene-expression profiles predict survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma
Beer, D. G., Kardia, S. L. R., Huang, C.-C., Giordano, T. J., Levin, A. M., Misek, D. E., Lin, L., Chen, G., Gharib, T. G., Thomas, D. G., et al. (2002) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm733 · Cited by 2,025
Network‐based classification of breast cancer metastasis
Chuang, H., Lee, E., Liu, Y., Lee, D., & Ideker, T. (2007) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.1038/msb4100180 · Cited by 1,431
Validating Stat3 in cancer therapy
Darnell, J. E. (2005) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm0605-595 · Cited by 307
Cited by
Random walks and diffusion on networks
Masuda, N., Porter, M. A., & Lambiotte, R. (2017) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.07.007 · Cited by 657
Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer
Huang, B., Huang, H., Zhang, S., Zhang, D., Shi, Q., Liu, J., & Guo, J. (2022) · Theranostics · doi:10.7150/thno.77949 · Cited by 142
“Due to its excellent computational power, AI was used to analyze PC prognoses, including survival time [204-221], recurrence risk [78,221-224], metastasis [225-230], therapy response [79-81,231-240], etc.”
MethodComparative assessment of differential network analysis methods
Lichtblau, Y., Zimmermann, K., Haldemann, B., Lenze, D., Hummel, M., & Leser, U. (2016) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbw061 · Cited by 76
Zou, W., Sun, Y., Zhou, Y., Lu, Q., Nie, Y., Sun, T., & Peng, L. (2022) · IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine · doi:10.1109/mits.2020.2970185 · Cited by 84
Systematic tracking of dysregulated modules identifies novel genes in cancer
Srihari, S., & Ragan, M. A. (2013) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt191 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Winter, C., Kristiansen, G., Kersting, S., Roy, J., Aust, D., Knösel, T., Rümmele, P., Jahnke, B., Hentrich, V., Rückert, F., Niedergethmann, M., Weichert, W., Bahra, M., Schlitt, H. J., Settmacher, U., Friess, H., Büchler, M., Saeger, H.-D., Schroeder, M., Pilarsky, C., & Grützmann, R.
- Venue
- PLoS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2012-05-17
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e1002511
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- OpenAlex
- W1965302838
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 8.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Google Goes Cancer: Improving Outcome Prediction for Cancer Patients by Network-Based Ranking of Marker Genes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002511
- The paper
- Winter, C., Kristiansen, G., Kersting, S., Roy, J., Aust, D., Knösel, T., Rümmele, P., Jahnke, B., Hentrich, V., Rückert, F., Niedergethmann, M., Weichert, W., Bahra, M., Schlitt, H. J., Settmacher, U., Friess, H., Büchler, M., Saeger, H.-D., Schroeder, M., . . . Grützmann, R. (2012). Google Goes Cancer: Improving Outcome Prediction for Cancer Patients by Network-Based Ranking of Marker Genes. PLoS Computational Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002511
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.