180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34131308)
1. Cancer Grade Model: a multi-gene machine learning-based risk classification for improving prognosis in breast cancer.
Amiri Souri E; Chenoweth A; Cheung A; Karagiannis SN; Tsoka S
Br J Cancer; 2021 Aug; 125(5):748-758. PubMed ID: 34131308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A qualitative transcriptional signature to reclassify histological grade of ER-positive breast cancer patients.
Li J; Jiang W; Liang Q; Liu G; Dai Y; Zheng H; Yang J; Cai H; Zheng G
BMC Genomics; 2020 Apr; 21(1):283. PubMed ID: 32252627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Determining breast cancer histological grade from RNA-sequencing data.
Wang M; Klevebring D; Lindberg J; Czene K; Grönberg H; Rantalainen M
Breast Cancer Res; 2016 May; 18(1):48. PubMed ID: 27165105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Relative Prognostic and Predictive Value of Gene Signature and Histologic Grade in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer.
Iwamoto T; Kelly C; Mizoo T; Nogami T; Motoki T; Shien T; Taira N; Hayashi N; Niikura N; Fujiwara T; Doihara H; Matsuoka J
Clin Breast Cancer; 2016 Apr; 16(2):95-100.e1. PubMed ID: 26631838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Artificial intelligence grading of breast cancer: a promising method to refine prognostic classification for management precision.
Elsharawy KA; Gerds TA; Rakha EA; Dalton LW
Histopathology; 2021 Aug; 79(2):187-199. PubMed ID: 33590486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A cell-to-patient machine learning transfer approach uncovers novel basal-like breast cancer prognostic markers amongst alternative splice variants.
Villemin JP; Lorenzi C; Cabrillac MS; Oldfield A; Ritchie W; Luco RF
BMC Biol; 2021 Apr; 19(1):70. PubMed ID: 33845831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Aneuploidy identifies subsets of patients with poor clinical outcome in grade 1 and grade 2 breast cancer.
Pinto AE; Pereira T; Silva GL; André S
Breast; 2015 Aug; 24(4):449-55. PubMed ID: 25920680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A simple method for assigning genomic grade to individual breast tumours.
Wennmalm K; Bergh J
BMC Cancer; 2011 Jul; 11():306. PubMed ID: 21777443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. MiR-34a expression has an effect for lower risk of metastasis and associates with expression patterns predicting clinical outcome in breast cancer.
Peurala H; Greco D; Heikkinen T; Kaur S; Bartkova J; Jamshidi M; Aittomäki K; Heikkilä P; Bartek J; Blomqvist C; Bützow R; Nevanlinna H
PLoS One; 2011; 6(11):e26122. PubMed ID: 22102859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Expression profiling of ion channel genes predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer.
Ko JH; Ko EA; Gu W; Lim I; Bang H; Zhou T
Mol Cancer; 2013 Sep; 12(1):106. PubMed ID: 24053408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Breast cancer outcome prediction with tumour tissue images and machine learning.
Turkki R; Byckhov D; Lundin M; Isola J; Nordling S; Kovanen PE; Verrill C; von Smitten K; Joensuu H; Lundin J; Linder N
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2019 Aug; 177(1):41-52. PubMed ID: 31119567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Prognostic and Therapeutic Significance of Adhesion-regulating Molecule 1 in Estrogen Receptor-positive Breast Cancer.
Wu W; Zhong J; Chen J; Niu P; Ding Y; Han S; Xu J; Dai L
Clin Breast Cancer; 2020 Apr; 20(2):131-144.e3. PubMed ID: 31669266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Research-based PAM50 signature and long-term breast cancer survival.
Pu M; Messer K; Davies SR; Vickery TL; Pittman E; Parker BA; Ellis MJ; Flatt SW; Marinac CR; Nelson SH; Mardis ER; Pierce JP; Natarajan L
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2020 Jan; 179(1):197-206. PubMed ID: 31542876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Development and prognostic validation of a three-level NHG-like deep learning-based model for histological grading of breast cancer.
Sharma A; Weitz P; Wang Y; Liu B; Vallon-Christersson J; Hartman J; Rantalainen M
Breast Cancer Res; 2024 Jan; 26(1):17. PubMed ID: 38287342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Forkhead box A1 expression in breast cancer is associated with luminal subtype and good prognosis.
Thorat MA; Marchio C; Morimiya A; Savage K; Nakshatri H; Reis-Filho JS; Badve S
J Clin Pathol; 2008 Mar; 61(3):327-32. PubMed ID: 18037662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis.
Sotiriou C; Wirapati P; Loi S; Harris A; Fox S; Smeds J; Nordgren H; Farmer P; Praz V; Haibe-Kains B; Desmedt C; Larsimont D; Cardoso F; Peterse H; Nuyten D; Buyse M; Van de Vijver MJ; Bergh J; Piccart M; Delorenzi M
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Feb; 98(4):262-72. PubMed ID: 16478745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Identification of a 6-gene signature for the survival prediction of breast cancer patients based on integrated multi-omics data analysis.
Mo W; Ding Y; Zhao S; Zou D; Ding X
PLoS One; 2020; 15(11):e0241924. PubMed ID: 33170908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The Genomic Grade Assay Compared With Ki67 to Determine Risk of Distant Breast Cancer Recurrence.
Ignatiadis M; Azim HA; Desmedt C; Veys I; Larsimont D; Salgado R; Lyng MB; Viale G; Leyland-Jones B; Giobbie-Hurder A; Kammler R; Dell'Orto P; Rothé F; Laïos I; Ditzel HJ; Regan MM; Piccart M; Michiels S; Sotiriou C
JAMA Oncol; 2016 Feb; 2(2):217-24. PubMed ID: 26633571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
