Expression profile of 285 ovarian tumour samples
We used microarrays to profile the expression levels of 285 ovarian samples in order to identify molecular subtypes of the tumour
Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 115 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.
- Functional genomics identifies five distinct molecular subtypes... 2013 · 291 cites
- curatedOvarianData: clinically annotated data for the ovarian ca... 2013 · 213 cites
- Decoding critical long non-coding RNA in ovarian cancer epitheli... 2017 · 208 cites
- High-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer refined with single-cell R... 2021 · 195 cites
- A network module-based method for identifying cancer prognostic... 2012 · 165 cites
- Gene regulatory network inference: evaluation and application to... 2012 · 164 cites
- The H3K9 methyltransferase G9a is a marker of aggressive ovarian... 2014 · 159 cites
- Biomolecular Events in Cancer Revealed by Attractor Metagenes 2013 · 105 cites
- The RNA binding protein FXR1 is a new driver in the 3q26-29 ampl... 2015 · 101 cites
- EZH2 activates CHK1 signaling to promote ovarian cancer chemores... 2020 · 100 cites
- The RNA binding protein SORBS2 suppresses metastatic colonizatio... 2018 · 96 cites
- WNT7A/β-catenin signaling induces FGF1 and influences sensitivit... 2014 · 91 cites
- Long noncoding RNA expression signature to predict platinum-base... 2017 · 89 cites
- EZH2-mediated epigenetic silencing of TIMP2 promotes ovarian can... 2017 · 88 cites
- A distinct p53 target gene set predicts for response to the sele... 2015 · 87 cites
- Weighted Frequent Gene Co-expression Network Mining to Identify... 2012 · 86 cites
- CDK6 protects epithelial ovarian cancer from platinum‐induced de... 2017 · 79 cites
63 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.