Search

High-throughput technologies do not only provide novel means for basic biological research but also for clinical applications in hospitals. For instance, the usage of gene expression profiles as prognostic biomarkers for predicting cancer progression has found widespread interest. Aside from predicting the progression of patients, it is generally believed that such prognostic biomarkers also provide valuable information about disease mechanisms and the underlying molecular processes that are causal for a disorder. However, the latter assumption has been challenged. In this paper, we study this problem for prostate cancer. Specifically, we investigate a large number of previously published prognostic signatures of prostate cancer based on gene expression profiles and show that none of these can provide unique information about the underlying disease etiology of prostate cancer. Hence, our analysis reveals that none of the studied signatures has a sensible biological meaning. Overall, this shows that all studied prognostic signatures are merely black-box models allowing sensible predictions of prostate cancer outcome but are not capable of providing causal explanations to enhance the understanding of prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prognostic biomarkers can have an important role in the clinical practice because they allow stratification of patients in terms of predicting the outcome of a disorder. Obstacles for developing such markers include lack of robustness when using different data sets and limited concordance among similar signatures. In this paper, we highlight a new problem that relates to the biological meaning of already established prognostic gene expression signatures. Specifically, it is commonly assumed that prognostic markers provide sensible biological information and molecular explanations about the underlying disorder. However, recent studies on prognostic biomarkers investigating 80 established signatures of breast and prostate cancer demonstrated that this is not the case. We will show that this surprising result is related to the distinction between causal models and predictive models and the obfuscating usage of these models in the biomedical literature. Furthermore, we suggest a falsification procedure for studies aiming to establish a prognostic signature to safeguard against false expectations with respect to biological utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]