174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16859500)
41. Identifying glycolysis-related LncRNAs for predicting prognosis in breast cancer patients.
Zou J; Gu Y; Zhu Q; Li X; Qin L
Cancer Biomark; 2022; 34(3):393-401. PubMed ID: 35068448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Expression and methylation patterns partition luminal-A breast tumors into distinct prognostic subgroups.
Netanely D; Avraham A; Ben-Baruch A; Evron E; Shamir R
Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Jul; 18(1):74. PubMed ID: 27386846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Outcome signature genes in breast cancer: is there a unique set?
Ein-Dor L; Kela I; Getz G; Givol D; Domany E
Bioinformatics; 2005 Jan; 21(2):171-8. PubMed ID: 15308542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. MMP11 and CD2 as novel prognostic factors in hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer.
Han J; Choi YL; Kim H; Choi JY; Lee SK; Lee JE; Choi JS; Park S; Choi JS; Kim YD; Nam SJ; Nam BH; Kwon MJ; Shin YK
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Jul; 164(1):41-56. PubMed ID: 28409241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Prognostic stromal gene signatures in breast cancer.
Winslow S; Leandersson K; Edsjö A; Larsson C
Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Feb; 17(1):23. PubMed ID: 25848820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Interrogating differences in expression of targeted gene sets to predict breast cancer outcome.
Andres SA; Brock GN; Wittliff JL
BMC Cancer; 2013 Jul; 13():326. PubMed ID: 23819905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Incorporating topological information for predicting robust cancer subnetwork markers in human protein-protein interaction network.
Khunlertgit N; Yoon BJ
BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Oct; 17(Suppl 13):351. PubMed ID: 27766944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Gene expression signatures, clinicopathological features, and individualized therapy in breast cancer.
Acharya CR; Hsu DS; Anders CK; Anguiano A; Salter KH; Walters KS; Redman RC; Tuchman SA; Moylan CA; Mukherjee S; Barry WT; Dressman HK; Ginsburg GS; Marcom KP; Garman KS; Lyman GH; Nevins JR; Potti A
JAMA; 2008 Apr; 299(13):1574-87. PubMed ID: 18387932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. BreastMark: an integrated approach to mining publicly available transcriptomic datasets relating to breast cancer outcome.
Madden SF; Clarke C; Gaule P; Aherne ST; O'Donovan N; Clynes M; Crown J; Gallagher WM
Breast Cancer Res; 2013; 15(4):R52. PubMed ID: 23820017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Development and validation of an individualized gene expression-based signature to predict overall survival of patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.
Yuan D; Zhu H; Wang T; Zhang Y; Zheng X; Qu Y
Eur J Med Res; 2023 Oct; 28(1):465. PubMed ID: 37884970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. In silico analysis of differentially expressed genesets in metastatic breast cancer identifies potential prognostic biomarkers.
Kim J
World J Surg Oncol; 2021 Jun; 19(1):188. PubMed ID: 34172056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Establishment of the epithelial-specific transcriptome of normal and malignant human breast cells based on MPSS and array expression data.
Grigoriadis A; Mackay A; Reis-Filho JS; Steele D; Iseli C; Stevenson BJ; Jongeneel CV; Valgeirsson H; Fenwick K; Iravani M; Leao M; Simpson AJ; Strausberg RL; Jat PS; Ashworth A; Neville AM; O'Hare MJ
Breast Cancer Res; 2006; 8(5):R56. PubMed ID: 17014703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Association of Protein Translation and Extracellular Matrix Gene Sets with Breast Cancer Metastasis: Findings Uncovered on Analysis of Multiple Publicly Available Datasets Using Individual Patient Data Approach.
Chowdhury N; Sapru S
PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0129610. PubMed ID: 26080057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. Merging microarray data from separate breast cancer studies provides a robust prognostic test.
Xu L; Tan AC; Winslow RL; Geman D
BMC Bioinformatics; 2008 Feb; 9():125. PubMed ID: 18304324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. 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]
57. 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]
58. Integrative analysis of survival-associated gene sets in breast cancer.
Varn FS; Ung MH; Lou SK; Cheng C
BMC Med Genomics; 2015 Mar; 8():11. PubMed ID: 25881247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Improved prognostic classification of breast cancer defined by antagonistic activation patterns of immune response pathway modules.
Teschendorff AE; Gomez S; Arenas A; El-Ashry D; Schmidt M; Gehrmann M; Caldas C
BMC Cancer; 2010 Nov; 10():604. PubMed ID: 21050467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. A prognosis classifier for breast cancer based on conserved gene regulation between mammary gland development and tumorigenesis: a multiscale statistical model.
Tian Y; Chen B; Guan P; Kang Y; Lu Z
PLoS One; 2013; 8(4):e60131. PubMed ID: 23565194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
