Skip Navigation


Bioinformatics Advance Access originally published online on July 15, 2008
Bioinformatics 2009 25(1):54-60; doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn354
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (Print PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
25/1/54    most recent
btn354v1
Right arrow Comments: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Koziol, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mercola, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Koziol, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mercola, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The wisdom of the commons: ensemble tree classifiers for prostate cancer prognosis

James A. Koziol 1, Anne C. Feng 1, Zhenyu Jia 2, Yipeng Wang 2,3, Seven Goodison 4, Michael McClelland 3 and Dan Mercola 2,*

1The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, 2Translational Cancer Biology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California, Irvine, 3The Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, San Diego, CA and 4Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Shands Health Science Center, Jacksonville, FL, USA

*To whom correspondence should be addressed.


  Abstract

Motivation: Classification and regression trees have long been used for cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Nevertheless, instability and variable selection bias, as well as overfitting, are well-known problems of tree-based methods. In this article, we investigate whether ensemble tree classifiers can ameliorate these difficulties, using data from two recent studies of radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer.

Results: Using time to progression following prostatectomy as the relevant clinical endpoint, we found that ensemble tree classifiers robustly and reproducibly identified three subgroups of patients in the two clinical datasets: non-progressors, early progressors and late progressors. Moreover, the consensus classifications were independent predictors of time to progression compared to known clinical prognostic factors.

Contact: dmercola{at}uci.edu

Associate Editor: Martin Bishop

Received on April 3, 2008; revised on July 9, 2008; accepted on July 10, 2008

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Genome ResHome page
K. S. Pollard, M. J. Hubisz, K. R. Rosenbloom, and A. Siepel
Detection of nonneutral substitution rates on mammalian phylogenies
Genome Res., January 1, 2010; 20(1): 110 - 121.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.