Search

The ensemble method random forests has become a popular classification tool in bioinformatics and related fields. The out-of-bag error is an error estimation technique often used to evaluate the accuracy of a random forest and to select appropriate values for tuning parameters, such as the number of candidate predictors that are randomly drawn for a split, referred to as mtry. However, for binary classification problems with metric predictors it has been shown that the out-of-bag error can overestimate the true prediction error depending on the choices of random forests parameters. Based on simulated and real data this paper aims to identify settings for which this overestimation is likely. It is, moreover, questionable whether the out-of-bag error can be used in classification tasks for selecting tuning parameters like mtry, because the overestimation is seen to depend on the parameter mtry. The simulation-based and real-data based studies with metric predictor variables performed in this paper show that the overestimation is largest in balanced settings and in settings with few observations, a large number of predictor variables, small correlations between predictors and weak effects. There was hardly any impact of the overestimation on tuning parameter selection. However, although the prediction performance of random forests was not substantially affected when using the out-of-bag error for tuning parameter selection in the present studies, one cannot be sure that this applies to all future data. For settings with metric predictor variables it is therefore strongly recommended to use stratified subsampling with sampling fractions that are proportional to the class sizes for both tuning parameter selection and error estimation in random forests. This yielded less biased estimates of the true prediction error. In unbalanced settings, in which there is a strong interest in predicting observations from the smaller classes well, sampling the same number of observations from each class is a promising alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence is growing that low-dose aspirin used as an adjuvant treatment of cancer is associated with an increased survival and a reduction in metastatic spread. We therefore extended up to August 2017 an earlier systematic search and meta-analyses of published studies of low-dose aspirin taken by patients with a diagnosis of cancer. Methods: Searches were completed in Medline and Embase to August 2017 using a pre-defined search strategy to identify reports of relevant studies. References in all the selected papers were scanned. Two reviewers independently applied pre-determined eligibility criteria and extracted data on cause-specific cancer deaths, overall mortality and the occurrence of metastatic spread. Meta-analyses were then conducted for different cancers and heterogeneity and publication bias assessed. Sensitivity analyses and attempts to reduce heterogeneity were conducted. Results: Analyses of 29 studies reported since an earlier review up to April 2015 are presented in this report, and these are then pooled with the 42 studies in our earlier publication. Overall meta-analyses of the 71 studies are presented, based on a total of over 120 thousand patients taking aspirin. Ten of the studies also give evidence on the incidence of metastatic cancer spread. There are now twenty-nine observational studies describing colorectal cancer (CRC) and post-diagnostic aspirin. Pooling the estimates of reduction by aspirin which are reported as hazard ratios (HR), gives an overall HR for aspirin and CRC mortality 0.72 (95% CI 0.64–0.80). Fourteen observational studies have reported on aspirin and breast cancer mortality and pooling those that report the association with aspirin as a hazard ratio gives HR 0.69 (0.53–0.90). Sixteen studies report on aspirin and prostate cancer mortality and a pooled estimate yields an HR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.73–1.05). Data from 12 reports relating to other cancers are also listed. Ten studies give evidence of a reduction in metastatic spread; four give a pooled HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.18, 0.54) and five studies which reported odds ratio of metastatic spread give OR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.95). Conclusion: Being almost entirely from observational studies, the evidence of benefit from aspirin is limited. There is heterogeneity between studies and the results are subject to important biases, only some of which can be identified. Nevertheless, the evidence would seem to merit wide discussion regarding whether or not it is adequate to justify the recommendation of low-dose therapeutic aspirin, and if it is, for which cancers? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low-dose aspirin has been shown to reduce the incidence of cancer, but its role in the treatment of cancer is uncertain. Objectives: We conducted a systematic search of the scientific literature on aspirin taken by patients following a diagnosis of cancer, together with appropriate meta-analyses. Methods: Searches were completed in Medline and Embase in December 2015 using a pre-defined search strategy. References and abstracts of all the selected papers were scanned and expert colleagues were contacted for additional studies. Two reviewers applied pre-determined eligibility criteria (cross-sectional, cohort and controlled studies, and aspirin taken after a diagnosis of cancer), assessed study quality and extracted data on cancer cause-specific deaths, overall mortality and incidence of metastases. Random effects meta-analyses and planned sub-group analyses were completed separately for observational and experimental studies. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed in sensitivity analyses and appropriate omissions made. Papers were examined for any reference to bleeding and authors of the papers were contacted and questioned. Results: Five reports of randomised trials were identified, together with forty two observational studies: sixteen on colorectal cancer, ten on breast and ten on prostate cancer mortality. Pooling of eleven observational reports of the effect of aspirin on cause-specific mortality from colon cancer, after the omission of one report identified on the basis of sensitivity analyses, gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76 (95% CI 0.66, 0.88) with reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.04). The cause specific mortality in five reports of patients with breast cancer showed significant heterogeneity (P<0.0005) but the omission of one outlying study reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.19) and led to an HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.69, 1.09). Heterogeneity between nine studies of prostate cancer was significant, but again, the omission of one study led to acceptable homogeneity (P = 0.26) and an overall HR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.79–0.99). Six single studies of other cancers suggested reductions in cause specific mortality by aspirin, and in five the effect is statistically significant. There were no significant differences between the pooled HRs for the three main cancers and after the omission of three reports already identified in sensitivity analyses heterogeneity was removed and revealed an overall HR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.90). A mutation of PIK3CA was present in about 20% of patients, and appeared to explain most of the reduction in colon cancer mortality by aspirin. Data were not adequate to examine the importance of this or any other marker in the effect of aspirin in the other cancers. On bleeding attributable to aspirin two reports stated that there had been no side effect or bleeding attributable to aspirin. Authors on the other reports were written to and 21 replied stating that no data on bleeding were available. Conclusions and Implications: The study highlights the need for randomised trials of aspirin treatment in a variety of cancers. While these are awaited there is an urgent need for evidence from observational studies of aspirin and the less common cancers, and for more evidence of the relevance of possible bio-markers of the aspirin effect on a wide variety of cancers. In the meantime it is urged that patients in whom a cancer is diagnosed should be given details of this research, together with its limitations, to enable each to make an informed decision as to whether or not to take low-dose aspirin. Systematic Review Protocol Number: CRD42015014145 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Current studies give us inconsistent results regarding the association of neoplasms and zinc(II) serum and tissues concentrations. The results of to-date studies using meta-analysis are summarized in this paper. Methods: Web of Science (Science citation index expanded), PubMed (Medline), Embase and CENTRAL were searched. Articles were reviewed by two evaluators; quality was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale; meta-analysis was performed including meta-regression and publication bias analysis. Results: Analysis was performed on 114 case control, cohort and cross-sectional studies of 22737 participants. Decreased serum zinc level was found in patients with lung (effect size = −1.04), head and neck (effect size = −1.43), breast (effect size = −0.93), liver (effect size = −2.29), stomach (effect size = −1.59), and prostate (effect size = −1.36) cancers; elevation was not proven in any tumor. More specific zinc patterns are evident at tissue level, showing increase in breast cancer tissue (effect size = 1.80) and decrease in prostatic (effect size = −3.90), liver (effect size = −8.26), lung (effect size = −3.12), and thyroid cancer (effect size = −2.84). The rest of the included tumors brought ambiguous results, both in serum and tissue zinc levels across the studies. The association between zinc level and stage or grade of tumor has not been revealed by meta-regression. Conclusion: This study provides evidence on cancer-specific tissue zinc level alteration. Although serum zinc decrease was associated with most tumors mentioned herein, further – prospective - studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]