Evidence Hub

Prediction of differentially expressed microRNAs in blood as potential biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease by meta-analysis and adaptive boosting ensemble learning

Yuen SC, Liang X, Zhu H, Jia Y, Leung SW

Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2021

33 citations

Abstract

Background: Blood circulating microRNAs that are specific for Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be identified from differentially expressed microRNAs (DEmiRNAs). However, non-reproducible and inconsistent reports of DEmiRNAs hinder biomarker development. The most reliable DEmiRNAs can be identified by meta-analysis. To enrich the pool of DEmiRNAs for potential AD biomarkers, we used a machine learning method called adaptive boosting for miRNA disease association (ABMDA) to identify eligible candidates that share similar characteristics with the DEmiRNAs identified from meta-analysis. This study aimed to identify blood circulating DEmiRNAs as potential AD biomarkers by augmenting meta-analysis with the ABMDA ensemble learning method.

Methods: Studies on DEmiRNAs and their dysregulation states were corroborated with one another by meta-analysis based on a random-effects model. DEmiRNAs identified by meta-analysis were collected as positive examples of miRNA-AD pairs for ABMDA ensemble learning. ABMDA identified similar DEmiRNAs according to a set of predefined criteria. The biological significance of all resulting DEmiRNAs was determined by their target genes according to pathway enrichment analyses. The target genes common to both meta-analysis- and ABMDA-identified DEmiRNAs were collected to construct a network to investigate their biological functions.

Results: A systematic database search found 7841 studies for an extensive meta-analysis, covering 54 independent comparisons of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free