Corpus 1,272 assessed · 1,173 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 168 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

GSE7390

GEO first seen 2012

Strong Time Dependence of the 76-Gene Prognostic Signature

Organism
Homo sapiens
Samples
198
Type
Expression profiling by arra...
Submitted
2007-03-28

Background: Recently a 76-gene prognostic signature able to predict distant metastases in lymph node-negative (N-) breast cancer patients was reported. The aims of this study conducted by TRANSBIG were to independently validate these results and to compare the outcome with clinical risk assessment. Materials and Methods: Gene expression profiling of frozen samples from 198 N- systemically untreated patients was performed at the Bordet Institute, blinded to clinical data and independent of Veride...

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 217 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.

Deposited / produced by
Christine DesmedtFanny PietteSherene LoiYixin WangFrancoise LallemandBenjamin Haibe-KainsGiuseppe VialeMauro DelorenziYhi ZhangMahasti SaghatchianJonas BerghRosette LidereauPaul EllisAdrian HarrisJan G KlijnJohn A FoekensFatima CardosoMartine J PiccartMarc BuyseChristos Sotiriou
Test set bias affects reproducibility of gene signatures 2015
Reused by

25 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

metadata only · no data-level QC for this type

Standardized, 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.

QC cost 4 s compute

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.

3 studies use it 2 reproduced 1 flagged mean score 63