ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Exploring gene expression heterogeneity in burn wounds through machine learning models:
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study used machine learning to assess gene expression heterogeneity among burn wound patients. Methods: Gene expression data were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. The raw data were normalized and then reduced using principal component analysis. Then, the machine learning algorithms such as K-Means Clustering, Agglomerative Clustering, Spectral Clustering, and Gaussian Mixture Models were used to perform the clustering, and the performance of each model was compared by way of the Silhouette Score. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was run on the resulting clusters using gene expression features with parameters successfully tuned via cross-validation. Results: The clustering algorithms identified three distinct gene expression clusters in burn patients. Differential gene expression analysis revealed significant variations between clusters, with 303 genes differentially expressed between Clusters 0 and 1, 12 between Clusters 0 and 2, and 429 between Clusters 1 and 2. Age differences were also significant, with Clusters 0 and 1 representing older individuals compared to Cluster 2. No significant differences were found in the time since injury between clusters. The LDA model, a cornerstone of this study, demonstrated impressive accuracy in classifying gene expression data, with a test accuracy of 93% and robust performance metrics across clusters. Conclusion: This study not only illuminates the gene expression heterogeneity in burn wounds but also suggests the potential influence of age on this variation. By identifying molecular subtypes of burn injury based on gene expression patterns, these findings may help in developing early diagnostic tools and personalized therapeutic approaches.
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.