Genetic Reclassification of Histologic Grade Delineates New Clinical Subtypes of Breast Cancer
Histological grading of breast cancer defines morphological subtypes informative of metastatic potential, although not without considerable inter-observer disagreement and clinical heterogeneity particularly among the moderately differentiated grade II (G2) tumors. We posited that a gene expression signature capable of discerning tumors of grade I (G1) and grade III (G3) histology might provide a more objective measure of grade with prognostic benefit for patients with moderately differentiated...
Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 118 papers in the literature. Roles are inferred factual signals (who deposited the data vs who reused it), with counts — never a judgement about any author.
- Survival analysis across the entire transcriptome identifies bio... 2021 · 1,740 cites
- SurvExpress: An Online Biomarker Validation Tool and Database fo... 2013 · 716 cites
- Prognostic Significance of Progesterone Receptor–Positive Tumor... 2012 · 589 cites
- Aerobic glycolysis tunes YAP/TAZ transcriptional activity 2015 · 420 cites
- DeepProg: an ensemble of deep-learning and machine-learning mode... 2021 · 281 cites
- Wnt signaling in triple negative breast cancer is associated wit... 2013 · 251 cites
- Critical role for lysyl oxidase in mesenchymal stem cell-driven... 2012 · 218 cites
- Taxonomy of breast cancer based on normal cell phenotype predict... 2014 · 198 cites
- A RAB5/RAB4 recycling circuitry induces a proteolytic invasive p... 2014 · 188 cites
- A network module-based method for identifying cancer prognostic... 2012 · 165 cites
- Identification of Prognosis-Relevant Subgroups in Patients with... 2013 · 161 cites
- Downregulation of long noncoding RNA MALAT1 induces epithelial-t... 2015 · 151 cites
- Genomic and protein expression analysis reveals flap endonucleas... 2014 · 149 cites
- HMGA1 promotes metastatic processes in basal-like breast cancer... 2013 · 134 cites
- Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 mediates TAZ expression and nuclear l... 2014 · 116 cites
- Mitochondrial ATAD3A combines with GRP78 to regulate the WASF3 m... 2015 · 116 cites
- A potential prognostic long non-coding RNA signature to predict... 2015 · 108 cites
- Up-regulation of the mitotic checkpoint component Mad1 causes ch... 2012 · 104 cites
- The RNA binding protein FXR1 is a new driver in the 3q26-29 ampl... 2015 · 101 cites
- miR‐10b*, a master inhibitor of the cell cycle, is down‐regulate... 2012 · 95 cites
- The gene expression landscape of breast cancer is shaped by tumo... 2012 · 94 cites
- Systematic Analysis of Gene Expression Alteration and Co-Express... 2018 · 84 cites
- A genomic analysis of mouse models of breast cancer reveals mole... 2014 · 83 cites
- Targeting BRCA1‐BER deficient breast cancer by ATM or DNA‐PKcs b... 2014 · 80 cites
- A Novel Model to Combine Clinical and Pathway-Based Transcriptom... 2014 · 78 cites
- WDR5 Expression Is Prognostic of Breast Cancer Outcome 2015 · 78 cites
- Network and Data Integration for Biomarker Signature Discovery v... 2013 · 77 cites
- Mechanical cue‐induced YAP instructs Skp2‐dependent cell cycle e... 2017 · 77 cites
- Lysine-Specific Histone Demethylase 1 Inhibitors Control Breast... 2012 · 76 cites
- Cyclin D1 induction of Dicer governs microRNA processing and exp... 2013 · 74 cites
- SPHK1 regulates proliferation and survival responses in triple-n... 2014 · 73 cites
- Construction and investigation of breast‐cancer‐specific ceRNA n... 2014 · 71 cites
48 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
metadata only · no data-level QC for this typeStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained
No quantitative QC rubric exists for this data type yet, so it is deliberately left unscored — this is an honest "not applicable", not a poor rating.
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0 · provisional — verify independently
Scientific quality
Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.