| Literature DB >> 30717468 |
Taijun Hana1, Shota Tanaka2, Takahide Nejo3, Satoshi Takahashi4, Yosuke Kitagawa5, Tsukasa Koike6, Masashi Nomura7, Shunsaku Takayanagi8, Nobuhito Saito9.
Abstract
In conducting medical research, a system which can objectively predict the future trends of the given research field is awaited. This study aims to establish a novel and versatile algorithm that predicts the latest trends in neuro-oncology. Seventy-nine neuro-oncological research fields were selected with computational sorting methods such as text-mining analyses. Thirty journals that represent the recent trends in neuro-oncology were also selected. As a novel concept, the annual impact (AI) of each year was calculated for each journal and field (number of articles published in the journal × impact factor of the journal). The AI index (AII) for the year was defined as the sum of the AIs of the 30 journals. The AII trends of the 79 fields from 2008 to 2017 were subjected to machine learning predicting analyses. The accuracy of the predictions was validated using actual past data. With this algorithm, the latest trends in neuro-oncology were predicted. As a result, the linear prediction model achieved relatively good accuracy. The predicted hottest fields in recent neuro-oncology included some interesting emerging fields such as microenvironment and anti-mitosis. This algorithm may be an effective and versatile tool for prediction of future trends in a particular medical field.Entities:
Keywords: impact factor; machine learning; neuro-oncology; regression analysis; text-mining; trend prediction
Year: 2019 PMID: 30717468 PMCID: PMC6406908 DOI: 10.3390/cancers11020178
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Conceptual diagram of Mining Integrated Navigation and Estimation Research Via Articles (MINERVA) algorithm. Based on the input data of subject fields of interest (SFI) and subject journals of interest (SJI), MINERVA will analyze the trends using PubMed database. By switching the input keywords, MINERVA can analyze the trends of any medical field.
Seventy-nine keywords of SFI and 30 journals of SJI.
| SFI | SJI | |
|---|---|---|
| 1p/19q | lymphoma |
|
| 2-HG | medulloblastoma |
|
| acute myeloid leukemia | melanoma |
|
| anaplastic astrocytoma | meningioma |
|
| anaplastic oligodendroglioma | metabolism |
|
| angiogenesis and invasion | metastasis |
|
| anti-mitotic | methylation |
|
| ATRX | methyltransferase |
|
| bevacizumab | MGMT |
|
| biomarker | microenvironment |
|
| BRAF | midline |
|
| castleman | MRI |
|
| cell biology | neuro-imaging |
|
| cell signal | neurotoxicity |
|
| chemotherapy | next generation sequencing |
|
| cholangiocarcinoma | oligodendroglioma |
|
| complications | p53 |
|
| craniopharyngioma | palliative care |
|
| diffuse astrocytoma | PD-1 |
|
| diffuse midline glioma | pediatric |
|
| DIPG | pilocytic astrocytoma |
|
| drug resistance | PNET |
|
| EGFR | progression |
|
| ependymoma | quality of life |
|
| epidemiology | radio |
|
| epigenetics | recurrent |
|
| epithelioid | schwannoma |
|
| genetics | single cell |
|
| germ cell tumor | spinal |
|
| glioblastoma | STAT |
|
| glioneuronal | stem cell | 30 journals of interest |
| H3K9 | targeted therapy | Abbreviations: 2-HG = 2-hydroxyglutarate. ATRX = alpha-thalassemia/mental retardation syndrome, nondeletion type, x-linked. BRAF = B-Raf. DIPG = diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. EGFR = epidermal growth factor receptor. IDH = isocitrate dehydrogenase. MGMT = O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase. MRI = magnetic resonance imaging. PD-1 = programmed death-1. PNET = primitive neuroectodermal tumor. STAT = signal transducer and activator of transcription. TET2 = ten-eleven translocation 2. TT = tumor treating. WHO = world health organization. |
| hemangioblastoma | temozolomide | |
| histone | TET2 | |
| IDH | thalamic | |
| immunology | translational | |
| inhibitor | TT | |
| K27M | tumor models | |
| leptomeningeal | WHO | |
| low-grade glioma | ||
| 79 fields of interest | ||
Figure 2(a) Regression analytic graphs are exemplified. Left side shows the result of “single cell”, and the right shows “IDH”. The vertical axis is the fold value of Δ-AII. The upper row is the result of linear prediction, the middle is quadratic polynomial and the lower is cubic polynomial. The circles are actual measured values and the triangles are predicted values. (b) Regression analytic predictions of “CRISPR”, “Cas 9” and “RNA-guided”. The vertical axis is the fold value of Δ-AII. The analyzed AII is the sum of these three keywords’ AII. Other arrangements are the same as Figure 2a.
Accuracy of the predictions by multiple regression analyses.
| Regression Analyses | Accuracy A | Accuracy B | Accuracy C | Accuracy D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear prediction | 70.6% | 25.0% * | 38.3% ** | 37.5% * |
| Quadratic polynomial | 54.4% | 15.0% * | 30.0% * | 45.0% **** |
| Cubic polynomial | 34.8% | 28.8% * | 36.7% *** | 20.0% * |
Accuracy A: The accuracy of prediction of the Δ-AII of the following year of data collection range within an error of 1.0-fold. B: The accuracy of prediction of the top 20 high Δ-AII fields of the following year of data collection range. C: The accuracy of prediction of the top 20 high Δ-AII fields of 2 years after data collection range. D: The accuracy of prediction of the top 20 high Δ-AII fields of 3 years after data collection range. Binominal test: * p > 0.05, ** p = 0.018, *** p = 0.034, **** p = 0.005.
Figure 3(a) The details of prediction with linear prediction using 5 years. The AII dataset to predict the top 20 fields with high Δ-AII of 2 years after the data collection period. Predicted top 20 fields with high Δ-AII are enumerated in left columns in order of expected Δ-AII scores. Right columns are the year’s actual top 20 fields with high Δ-AII in order of actual Δ-AII scores. Fields matching the prediction are connected by lines. The accumulated accuracy means Accuracy C of linear prediction of Table 2. (b) The details of prediction with quadratic polynomial. Other analytical conditions are the same as Figure 3a. Fields matching the prediction are connected by lines. The accumulated accuracy means accuracy C of quadratic polynomial of Table 2.
Top 20 hottest fields of neuro-oncology in 2019.
| Predicted Rank | Fields |
|---|---|
| 1 | anti-mitotic |
| 2 | anaplastic oligodendroglioma |
| 3 | oligodendroglioma |
| 4 | TT |
| 5 | STAT |
| 6 | neurotoxicity |
| 7 | angiogenesis and invasion |
| 8 | radio |
| 9 | translational |
| 10 | cell biology |
| 11 | quality of life |
| 12 | palliative care |
| 13 | immunology |
| 14 | low-grade glioma |
| 15 | microenvironment |
| 16 | epigenetics |
| 17 | WHO |
| 18 | lymphoma |
| 19 | EGFR |
| 20 | biomarker |