Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38745057›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Validating reference-based algorithms to determine cell-type heterogeneity in ovarian cancer DNA methylation studies.

Edyta Biskup, Joanna Lopacinska-Jørgensen, Lau Kræsing Vestergaard, Estrid Høgdall

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Edyta BiskupDepartment of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark. edyta.urszula.biskup-schmoller@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-5510-2712
Joanna Lopacinska-JørgensenDepartment of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7803-425X
Lau Kræsing VestergaardDepartment of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4750-4877
Estrid HøgdallDepartment of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4689-5658

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information about cell composition in tissue samples is crucial for biomarker discovery and prognosis. Specifically, cancer tissue samples present challenges in deconvolution studies due to mutations and genetic rearrangements. Here, we optimized a robust, DNA methylation-based protocol, to be used for deconvolution of ovarian cancer samples. We compared several state-of-the-art methods (HEpiDISH, MethylCIBERSORT and ARIC) and validated the proposed protocol in an in-silico mixture and in an external dataset containing samples from ovarian cancer patients and controls. The deconvolution protocol we eventually implemented is based on MethylCIBERSORT. Comparing deconvolution methods, we paid close attention to the role of a reference panel. We postulate that a possibly high number of samples (in our case: 247) should be used when building a reference panel to ensure robustness and to compensate for biological and technical variation between samples. Subsequently, we tested the performance of the validated protocol in our own study cohort, consisting of 72 patients with malignant and benign ovarian disease as well as in five external cohorts. In conclusion, we refined and validated a reference-based algorithm to determine cell type composition of ovarian cancer tissue samples to be used in cancer biology studies in larger cohorts.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDNA MethylationOvarian NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansBiomarkers, TumorDNA methylationOvarian cancerReference-based deconvolutionTissue heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID38745057
PMCPMC11094148

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.