@article{JiangOronClarketal.2016,
  author    = {Jiang, Yuxiang and Oron, Tal Ronnen and Clark, Wyatt T. and Bankapur, Asma R. and D'Andrea, Daniel and Lepore, Rosalba and Funk, Christopher S. and Kahanda, Indika and Verspoor, Karin M. and Ben-Hur, Asa and Koo, Da Chen Emily and Penfold-Brown, Duncan and Shasha, Dennis and Youngs, Noah and Bonneau, Richard and Lin, Alexandra and Sahraeian, Sayed M. E. and Martelli, Pier Luigi and Profiti, Giuseppe and Casadio, Rita and Cao, Renzhi and Zhong, Zhaolong and Cheng, Jianlin and Altenhoff, Adrian and Skunca, Nives and Dessimoz, Christophe and Dogan, Tunca and Hakala, Kai and Kaewphan, Suwisa and Mehryary, Farrokh and Salakoski, Tapio and Ginter, Filip and Fang, Hai and Smithers, Ben and Oates, Matt and Gough, Julian and T{\"o}r{\"o}nen, Petri and Koskinen, Patrik and Holm, Liisa and Chen, Ching-Tai and Hsu, Wen-Lian and Bryson, Kevin and Cozzetto, Domenico and Minneci, Federico and Jones, David T. and Chapman, Samuel and BKC, Dukka and Khan, Ishita K. and Kihara, Daisuke and Ofer, Dan and Rappoport, Nadav and Stern, Amos and Cibrian-Uhalte, Elena and Denny, Paul and Foulger, Rebecca E. and Hieta, Reija and Legge, Duncan and Lovering, Ruth C. and Magrane, Michele and Melidoni, Anna N. and Mutowo-Meullenet, Prudence and Pichler, Klemens and Shypitsyna, Aleksandra and Li, Biao and Zakeri, Pooya and ElShal, Sarah and Tranchevent, L{\´e}on-Charles and Das, Sayoni and Dawson, Natalie L. and Lee, David and Lees, Jonathan G. and Sillitoe, Ian and Bhat, Prajwal and Nepusz, Tam{\´a}s and Romero, Alfonso E. and Sasidharan, Rajkumar and Yang, Haixuan and Paccanaro, Alberto and Gillis, Jesse and Sede{\~n}o-Cort{\´e}s, Adriana E. and Pavlidis, Paul and Feng, Shou and Cejuela, Juan M. and Goldberg, Tatyana and Hamp, Tobias and Richter, Lothar and Salamov, Asaf and Gabaldon, Toni and Marcet-Houben, Marina and Supek, Fran and Gong, Qingtian and Ning, Wei and Zhou, Yuanpeng and Tian, Weidong and Falda, Marco and Fontana, Paolo and Lavezzo, Enrico and Toppo, Stefano and Ferrari, Carlo and Giollo, Manuel and Piovesan, Damiano and Tosatto, Silvio C. E. and del Pozo, Angela and Fern{\´a}ndez, Jos{\´e} M. and Maietta, Paolo and Valencia, Alfonso and Tress, Michael L. and Benso, Alfredo and Di Carlo, Stefano and Politano, Gianfranco and Savino, Alessandro and Rehman, Hafeez Ur and Re, Matteo and Mesiti, Marco and Valentini, Giorgio and Bargsten, Joachim W. and van Dijk, Aalt D. J. and Gemovic, Branislava and Glisic, Sanja and Perovic, Vladmir and Veljkovic, Veljko and Almeida-e-Silva, Danillo C. and Vencio, Ricardo Z. N. and Sharan, Malvika and Vogel, J{\"o}rg and Kansakar, Lakesh and Zhang, Shanshan and Vucetic, Slobodan and Wang, Zheng and Sternberg, Michael J. E. and Wass, Mark N. and Huntley, Rachael P. and Martin, Maria J. and O'Donovan, Claire and Robinson, Peter N. and Moreau, Yves and Tramontano, Anna and Babbitt, Patricia C. and Brenner, Steven E. and Linial, Michal and Orengo, Christine A. and Rost, Burkhard and Greene, Casey S. and Mooney, Sean D. and Friedberg, Iddo and Radivojac, Predrag and Veljkovic, Nevena},
  title     = {An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy},
  series = {Genome Biology},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Genome Biology},
  number    = {184},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13059-016-1037-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-166293},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background A major bottleneck in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of life is the assignment of function to proteins. While molecular experiments provide the most reliable annotation of proteins, their relatively low throughput and restricted purview have led to an increasing role for computational function prediction. However, assessing methods for protein function prediction and tracking progress in the field remain challenging. Results We conducted the second critical assessment of functional annotation (CAFA), a timed challenge to assess computational methods that automatically assign protein function. We evaluated 126 methods from 56 research groups for their ability to predict biological functions using Gene Ontology and gene-disease associations using Human Phenotype Ontology on a set of 3681 proteins from 18 species. CAFA2 featured expanded analysis compared with CAFA1, with regards to data set size, variety, and assessment metrics. To review progress in the field, the analysis compared the best methods from CAFA1 to those of CAFA2. Conclusions The top-performing methods in CAFA2 outperformed those from CAFA1. This increased accuracy can be attributed to a combination of the growing number of experimental annotations and improved methods for function prediction. The assessment also revealed that the definition of top-performing algorithms is ontology specific, that different performance metrics can be used to probe the nature of accurate predictions, and the relative diversity of predictions in the biological process and human phenotype ontologies. While there was methodological improvement between CAFA1 and CAFA2, the interpretation of results and usefulness of individual methods remain context-dependent.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{D'AndreaSoriaGrotenhuisetal.2021,
  author    = {D'Andrea, David and Soria, Francesco and Grotenhuis, Anne J. and Cha, Eugene K. and Malats, Nuria and Di Stasi, Savino and Joniau, Steven and Cai, Tommaso and Rhijn, Bas W. G. van and Irani, Jaques and Karnes, Jeffrey and Varkarakis, John and Baniel, Jack and Palou, Joan and Babjuk, Marek and Spahn, Martin and Ardelt, Peter and Colombo, Renzo and Serretta, Vincenzo and Dalbagni, Guido and Gontero, Paolo and Bartoletti, Riccardo and Larr{\´e}, Stephane and Malmstrom, Per-Uno and Sylvester, Richard and Shariat, Shahrokh F.},
  title     = {Association of patients' sex with treatment outcomes after intravesical bacillus Calmette-Gu{\´e}rin immunotherapy for T1G3/HG bladder cancer},
  series = {World Journal of Urology},
  volume    = {39},
  journal   = {World Journal of Urology},
  number    = {9},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00345-021-03653-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-344486},
  pages     = {3337-3344},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Purpose To investigate the association of patients' sex with recurrence and disease progression in patients treated with intravesical bacillus Calmette-Gu{\´e}rin (BCG) for T1G3/HG urinary bladder cancer (UBC). Materials and methods We analyzed the data of 2635 patients treated with adjuvant intravesical BCG for T1 UBC between 1984 and 2019. We accounted for missing data using multiple imputations and adjusted for covariate imbalance between males and females using inverse probability weighting (IPW). Crude and IPW-adjusted Cox regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) with their 95\% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of patients' sex with HG-recurrence and disease progression. Results A total of 2170 (82\%) males and 465 (18\%) females were available for analysis. Overall, 1090 (50\%) males and 244 (52\%) females experienced recurrence, and 391 (18\%) males and 104 (22\%) females experienced disease progression. On IPW-adjusted Cox regression analyses, female sex was associated with disease progression (HR 1.25, 95\%CI 1.01-1.56, p = 0.04) but not with recurrence (HR 1.06, 95\%CI 0.92-1.22, p = 0.41). A total of 1056 patients were treated with adequate BCG. In these patients, on IPW-adjusted Cox regression analyses, patients' sex was not associated with recurrence (HR 0.99, 95\%CI 0.80-1.24, p = 0.96), HG-recurrence (HR 1.00, 95\%CI 0.78-1.29, p = 0.99) or disease progression (HR 1.12, 95\%CI 0.78-1.60, p = 0.55). Conclusion Our analysis generates the hypothesis of a differential response to BCG between males and females if not adequately treated. Further studies should focus on sex-based differences in innate and adaptive immune system and their association with BCG response.},
  language  = {en}
}