“糖酵解酶乳酸脱氢酶A (LDHA)和磷酸果糖激酶血小板(PFKP) mRNA和蛋白水平是宫颈癌患者生存时间、复发和死亡风险的良好预测指标”评论

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Cancer Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-20 DOI:10.1002/cam4.70691
Hadi Raeisi Shahraki
{"title":"“糖酵解酶乳酸脱氢酶A (LDHA)和磷酸果糖激酶血小板(PFKP) mRNA和蛋白水平是宫颈癌患者生存时间、复发和死亡风险的良好预测指标”评论","authors":"Hadi Raeisi Shahraki","doi":"10.1002/cam4.70691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>I meticulously read the paper by Bolaños-Suárez et al. that was recently published online in <i>Cancer Medicine</i>. In this article, the authors tried to cluster patients with cervical cancer using the information of 14 glycolytic genes expression [<span>1</span>]. Undoubtedly, their study makes a valuable contribution to the area and using multivariate statistical analysis is interesting, but some methodological issues need to be taken into account.</p><p><i>The Subjective Determination of the Number of Clusters</i>:</p><p>The optimal number of cluster determinations is a fundamental issue in cluster analysis. Choosing any desired number of clusters by researchers is subjective and leads to bias by ignoring the nature of the data structure.</p><p>To address this issue, using direct methods such as the silhouette method or incorporating statistical tests such as gap statistics was suggested. The <i>NbClust</i> package in R software provides more than 30 indices for determining the optimal number of clusters [<span>2</span>].</p><p><i>Wrong Specification of Three Clusters Based on the Displayed Dendrogram</i>:</p><p>The tree-based representation of hierarchical cluster analysis called dendrogram was displayed in a figure by Bolaños-Suárez et al. To identify three clusters, we must cut the dendrogram at a certain height which corresponds to just three main branches of the tree (the red line in Figure 1). As illustrated in Figure 1, the obtained clusters are very different from the proposed clusters by Bolaños-Suárez et al.</p><p>In conclusion, checking the obtained results for consistency or biological relevance is necessary. Moreover, researchers must be aware that determining the optimal number of clusters is not a subjective issue, and using appropriate statistical indices is highly suggested.</p><p>I would like to thank again Bolaños-Suárez et al. for their valuable article and for sharing with us their in-depth investigation and analysis.</p><p><b>Hadi Raeisi Shahraki:</b> conceptualization (lead), data curation (lead), formal analysis (equal), funding acquisition (equal), investigation (equal), methodology (equal), project administration (equal), resources (equal), software (equal), supervision (equal), validation (equal), visualization (equal), writing – original draft (equal), writing – review and editing (equal).</p><p>The author declares no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":139,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Medicine","volume":"14 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cam4.70691","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comments on “The mRNA and Protein Levels of the Glycolytic Enzymes Lactate Dehydrogenase A (LDHA) and Phosphofructokinase Platelet (PFKP) Are Good Predictors of Survival Time, Recurrence, and Risk of Death in Cervical Cancer Patients”\",\"authors\":\"Hadi Raeisi Shahraki\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cam4.70691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>I meticulously read the paper by Bolaños-Suárez et al. that was recently published online in <i>Cancer Medicine</i>. In this article, the authors tried to cluster patients with cervical cancer using the information of 14 glycolytic genes expression [<span>1</span>]. Undoubtedly, their study makes a valuable contribution to the area and using multivariate statistical analysis is interesting, but some methodological issues need to be taken into account.</p><p><i>The Subjective Determination of the Number of Clusters</i>:</p><p>The optimal number of cluster determinations is a fundamental issue in cluster analysis. Choosing any desired number of clusters by researchers is subjective and leads to bias by ignoring the nature of the data structure.</p><p>To address this issue, using direct methods such as the silhouette method or incorporating statistical tests such as gap statistics was suggested. The <i>NbClust</i> package in R software provides more than 30 indices for determining the optimal number of clusters [<span>2</span>].</p><p><i>Wrong Specification of Three Clusters Based on the Displayed Dendrogram</i>:</p><p>The tree-based representation of hierarchical cluster analysis called dendrogram was displayed in a figure by Bolaños-Suárez et al. To identify three clusters, we must cut the dendrogram at a certain height which corresponds to just three main branches of the tree (the red line in Figure 1). As illustrated in Figure 1, the obtained clusters are very different from the proposed clusters by Bolaños-Suárez et al.</p><p>In conclusion, checking the obtained results for consistency or biological relevance is necessary. Moreover, researchers must be aware that determining the optimal number of clusters is not a subjective issue, and using appropriate statistical indices is highly suggested.</p><p>I would like to thank again Bolaños-Suárez et al. for their valuable article and for sharing with us their in-depth investigation and analysis.</p><p><b>Hadi Raeisi Shahraki:</b> conceptualization (lead), data curation (lead), formal analysis (equal), funding acquisition (equal), investigation (equal), methodology (equal), project administration (equal), resources (equal), software (equal), supervision (equal), validation (equal), visualization (equal), writing – original draft (equal), writing – review and editing (equal).</p><p>The author declares no conflicts of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Medicine\",\"volume\":\"14 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cam4.70691\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70691\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70691","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我仔细阅读了Bolaños-Suárez等人最近在线发表在《癌症医学》上的论文。本文试图利用14个糖酵解基因[1]的表达信息对宫颈癌患者进行聚类。毫无疑问,他们的研究对该领域做出了有价值的贡献,使用多元统计分析是有趣的,但一些方法问题需要考虑。聚类数量的主观确定:最优聚类数量的确定是聚类分析中的一个基本问题。研究人员选择任何期望数量的聚类都是主观的,并且由于忽略了数据结构的本质而导致偏见。为了解决这个问题,建议使用直接方法,如轮廓法或结合统计检验,如差距统计。R软件中的NbClust包提供了30多个索引来确定最优集群数量[2]。基于显示的树形图对三个聚类的错误说明:Bolaños-Suárez等人将分层聚类分析的树状表示称为树形图。为了识别三个集群,我们必须在树的三个主要分支(图1中的红线)对应的一定高度切割树突图。如图1所示,获得的集群与Bolaños-Suárez等人提出的集群非常不同。总之,检查获得的结果的一致性或生物学相关性是必要的。此外,研究人员必须意识到,确定最佳集群数量不是一个主观问题,并且强烈建议使用适当的统计指标。我要再次感谢Bolaños-Suárez等人的宝贵文章,并与我们分享他们的深入调查和分析。Hadi Raeisi Shahraki:概念化(领先),数据管理(领先),形式分析(领先),资金获取(领先),调查(领先),方法(领先),项目管理(领先),资源(领先),软件(领先),监督(领先),验证(领先),可视化(领先),写作-原始草案(领先),写作-审查和编辑(领先)。作者声明无利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comments on “The mRNA and Protein Levels of the Glycolytic Enzymes Lactate Dehydrogenase A (LDHA) and Phosphofructokinase Platelet (PFKP) Are Good Predictors of Survival Time, Recurrence, and Risk of Death in Cervical Cancer Patients”

Comments on “The mRNA and Protein Levels of the Glycolytic Enzymes Lactate Dehydrogenase A (LDHA) and Phosphofructokinase Platelet (PFKP) Are Good Predictors of Survival Time, Recurrence, and Risk of Death in Cervical Cancer Patients”

I meticulously read the paper by Bolaños-Suárez et al. that was recently published online in Cancer Medicine. In this article, the authors tried to cluster patients with cervical cancer using the information of 14 glycolytic genes expression [1]. Undoubtedly, their study makes a valuable contribution to the area and using multivariate statistical analysis is interesting, but some methodological issues need to be taken into account.

The Subjective Determination of the Number of Clusters:

The optimal number of cluster determinations is a fundamental issue in cluster analysis. Choosing any desired number of clusters by researchers is subjective and leads to bias by ignoring the nature of the data structure.

To address this issue, using direct methods such as the silhouette method or incorporating statistical tests such as gap statistics was suggested. The NbClust package in R software provides more than 30 indices for determining the optimal number of clusters [2].

Wrong Specification of Three Clusters Based on the Displayed Dendrogram:

The tree-based representation of hierarchical cluster analysis called dendrogram was displayed in a figure by Bolaños-Suárez et al. To identify three clusters, we must cut the dendrogram at a certain height which corresponds to just three main branches of the tree (the red line in Figure 1). As illustrated in Figure 1, the obtained clusters are very different from the proposed clusters by Bolaños-Suárez et al.

In conclusion, checking the obtained results for consistency or biological relevance is necessary. Moreover, researchers must be aware that determining the optimal number of clusters is not a subjective issue, and using appropriate statistical indices is highly suggested.

I would like to thank again Bolaños-Suárez et al. for their valuable article and for sharing with us their in-depth investigation and analysis.

Hadi Raeisi Shahraki: conceptualization (lead), data curation (lead), formal analysis (equal), funding acquisition (equal), investigation (equal), methodology (equal), project administration (equal), resources (equal), software (equal), supervision (equal), validation (equal), visualization (equal), writing – original draft (equal), writing – review and editing (equal).

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer Medicine
Cancer Medicine ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
907
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access, interdisciplinary journal providing rapid publication of research from global biomedical researchers across the cancer sciences. The journal will consider submissions from all oncologic specialties, including, but not limited to, the following areas: Clinical Cancer Research Translational research ∙ clinical trials ∙ chemotherapy ∙ radiation therapy ∙ surgical therapy ∙ clinical observations ∙ clinical guidelines ∙ genetic consultation ∙ ethical considerations Cancer Biology: Molecular biology ∙ cellular biology ∙ molecular genetics ∙ genomics ∙ immunology ∙ epigenetics ∙ metabolic studies ∙ proteomics ∙ cytopathology ∙ carcinogenesis ∙ drug discovery and delivery. Cancer Prevention: Behavioral science ∙ psychosocial studies ∙ screening ∙ nutrition ∙ epidemiology and prevention ∙ community outreach. Bioinformatics: Gene expressions profiles ∙ gene regulation networks ∙ genome bioinformatics ∙ pathwayanalysis ∙ prognostic biomarkers. Cancer Medicine publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and research methods papers, along with invited editorials and commentaries. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信