466 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15598354)
1. Prognostic meta-signature of breast cancer developed by two-stage mixture modeling of microarray data.
Shen R; Ghosh D; Chinnaiyan AM
BMC Genomics; 2004 Dec; 5(1):94. PubMed ID: 15598354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cross-platform analysis of cancer microarray data improves gene expression based classification of phenotypes.
Warnat P; Eils R; Brors B
BMC Bioinformatics; 2005 Nov; 6():265. PubMed ID: 16271137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Redefinition of Affymetrix probe sets by sequence overlap with cDNA microarray probes reduces cross-platform inconsistencies in cancer-associated gene expression measurements.
Carter SL; Eklund AC; Mecham BH; Kohane IS; Szallasi Z
BMC Bioinformatics; 2005 Apr; 6():107. PubMed ID: 15850491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of public cancer datasets and signatures identifies TP53 mutant signatures with robust prognostic and predictive value.
Lehmann BD; Ding Y; Viox DJ; Jiang M; Zheng Y; Liao W; Chen X; Xiang W; Yi Y
BMC Cancer; 2015 Mar; 15():179. PubMed ID: 25886164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Prognostic value of a 92-probe signature in breast cancer.
Akter S; Choi TG; Nguyen MN; Matondo A; Kim JH; Jo YH; Jo A; Shahid M; Jun DY; Yoo JY; Nguyen NN; Seo SW; Ali L; Lee JS; Yoon KS; Choe W; Kang I; Ha J; Kim J; Kim SS
Oncotarget; 2015 Jun; 6(17):15662-80. PubMed ID: 25883221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Mixture classification model based on clinical markers for breast cancer prognosis.
Zeng T; Liu J
Artif Intell Med; 2010; 48(2-3):129-37. PubMed ID: 20005686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Distinct molecular mechanisms underlying clinically relevant subtypes of breast cancer: gene expression analyses across three different platforms.
Sørlie T; Wang Y; Xiao C; Johnsen H; Naume B; Samaha RR; Børresen-Dale AL
BMC Genomics; 2006 May; 7():127. PubMed ID: 16729877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Multiple gene expression classifiers from different array platforms predict poor prognosis of colorectal cancer.
Lin YH; Friederichs J; Black MA; Mages J; Rosenberg R; Guilford PJ; Phillips V; Thompson-Fawcett M; Kasabov N; Toro T; Merrie AE; van Rij A; Yoon HS; McCall JL; Siewert JR; Holzmann B; Reeve AE
Clin Cancer Res; 2007 Jan; 13(2 Pt 1):498-507. PubMed ID: 17255271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Integration of RNA-Seq data with heterogeneous microarray data for breast cancer profiling.
Castillo D; Gálvez JM; Herrera LJ; Román BS; Rojas F; Rojas I
BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Nov; 18(1):506. PubMed ID: 29157215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Gene expression analysis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma using gene set enrichment analysis for biostatistical management.
Maruschke M; Reuter D; Koczan D; Hakenberg OW; Thiesen HJ
BJU Int; 2011 Jul; 108(2 Pt 2):E29-35. PubMed ID: 21435154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Multi-platform data integration in microarray analysis.
Tsiliki G; Zervakis M; Ioannou M; Sanidas E; Stathopoulos E; Potamias G; Tsiknakis M; Kafetzopoulos D
IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2011 Nov; 15(6):806-12. PubMed ID: 22113338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Consensus genes of the literature to predict breast cancer recurrence.
Lauss M; Kriegner A; Vierlinger K; Visne I; Yildiz A; Dilaveroglu E; Noehammer C
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2008 Jul; 110(2):235-44. PubMed ID: 17899371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fuzzy logic selection as a new reliable tool to identify molecular grade signatures in breast cancer--the INNODIAG study.
Kempowsky-Hamon T; Valle C; Lacroix-Triki M; Hedjazi L; Trouilh L; Lamarre S; Labourdette D; Roger L; Mhamdi L; Dalenc F; Filleron T; Favre G; François JM; Le Lann MV; Anton-Leberre V
BMC Med Genomics; 2015 Feb; 8():3. PubMed ID: 25888889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Improved breast cancer prognosis through the combination of clinical and genetic markers.
Sun Y; Goodison S; Li J; Liu L; Farmerie W
Bioinformatics; 2007 Jan; 23(1):30-7. PubMed ID: 17130137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Population-based molecular prognosis of breast cancer by transcriptional profiling.
Ma Y; Qian Y; Wei L; Abraham J; Shi X; Castranova V; Harner EJ; Flynn DC; Guo L
Clin Cancer Res; 2007 Apr; 13(7):2014-22. PubMed ID: 17404081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Molecular characteristics and metastasis predictor genes of triple-negative breast cancer: a clinical study of triple-negative breast carcinomas.
Kuo WH; Chang YY; Lai LC; Tsai MH; Hsiao CK; Chang KJ; Chuang EY
PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e45831. PubMed ID: 23049873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bayesian meta-analysis models for microarray data: a comparative study.
Conlon EM; Song JJ; Liu A
BMC Bioinformatics; 2007 Mar; 8():80. PubMed ID: 17343745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures.
Wirapati P; Sotiriou C; Kunkel S; Farmer P; Pradervand S; Haibe-Kains B; Desmedt C; Ignatiadis M; Sengstag T; Schütz F; Goldstein DR; Piccart M; Delorenzi M
Breast Cancer Res; 2008; 10(4):R65. PubMed ID: 18662380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Integrated gene expression profile predicts prognosis of breast cancer patients.
Li LF; Xu XJ; Zhao Y; Liu ZB; Shen ZZ; Jin WR; Shao ZM
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 Jan; 113(2):231-7. PubMed ID: 18278552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A prognostic model for lymph node-negative breast cancer patients based on the integration of proliferation and immunity.
Oh E; Choi YL; Park T; Lee S; Nam SJ; Shin YK
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2012 Apr; 132(2):499-509. PubMed ID: 21667120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
