ArticlePeerJ2025
EsoDetect: computational validation and algorithm development of a novel diagnostic and prognostic tool for dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a malignancy with increasing incidence and unfavorable prognosis. This study endeavors to identify BE biomarkers capable of diagnosing low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in BE, as well as biomarkers that can predict the progression from BE to EAC to be subsequently integrated into diagnostic and prognostic algorithms. Datasets containing gene expression data from metaplastic and dysplastic BE, as well as EAC tissue samples, were collected from public databases and used to explore gene expression patterns that differentiate between non-dysplastic (ND) and LGD BE (for diagnostic purposes) and between non-progressed and progressed BE (for prognostic purposes). Specifically, for the diagnostic application, three RNAseq datasets were employed, while for the prognostic application, nine microarray datasets were identified, and 25 previously described genes were validated. A thresholding function was applied to each gene to determine the optimal gene expression threshold for group differentiation. All analyzed genes were ranked based on the F1-score metrics. Following the identification of genes with superior performance, different classifiers were trained. Subsequently, the best algorithms for diagnostic and prognostic applications were selected. In evaluating the value of gene expression for diagnosis and prognosis, the analyzed datasets allowed for the ranking of biomarkers, resulting in eighteen diagnostic genes and fifteen prognostic genes that were used for further algorithm development. Ultimately, a linear support vector machine algorithm incorporating ten genes was identified for diagnostic application, while a radial basis function support vector machine algorithm, also utilizing ten genes, was selected for prognostic prediction. Notably, both classifiers achieved recall and specificity scores exceeding 0.90. The identified algorithms, along with their associated biomarkers, hold significant potential to aid in the early management of malignant progression of BE. Their strengths lie in their development using multiple independent datasets and their ability to demonstrate recall and specificity levels superior to those reported in the existing literature. Ongoing experimental and clinical validation is essential to further substantiate their utility and effectiveness, and to ensure that these tools can be reliably integrated into clinical practice to improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.