ArticleBMC bioinformatics2005
Evaluation of normalization methods for cDNA microarray data by k-NN classification.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modulation of Multiple Gene Clusters' Expression by the PAS-LuxR Transcriptional Regulator PteF.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Sliding-Window Normalization to Improve the Performance of Machine-Learning Models for Real-Time Motion Prediction Using Electromyography.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Integration of transcriptomic data identifies key hallmark genes in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Leukemia multiclass assessment and classification from Microarray and RNA-seq technologies integration at gene expression level.PloS one · 2019Article
- Integration of RNA-Seq data with heterogeneous microarray data for breast cancer profiling.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Ten quick tips for machine learning in computational biology.BioData mining · 2017Review
- Performance Evaluation and Online Realization of Data-driven Normalization Methods Used in LC/MS based Untargeted Metabolomics Analysis.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Comparison of pre-processing methods for multiplex bead-based immunoassays.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- ArgR of Streptomyces coelicolor is a versatile regulator.PloS one · 2012Article
- Article
- A comprehensive and universal method for assessing the performance of differential gene expression analyses.PloS one · 2010Article
- Lung cancer gene expression database analysis incorporating prior knowledge with support vector machine-based classification method.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2009Article
- A comparison on effects of normalisations in the detection of differentially expressed genes.BMC bioinformatics · 2009Article
- Optimization of cDNA microarrays procedures using criteria that do not rely on external standards.BMC genomics · 2007Article
- Orthogonal projections to latent structures as a strategy for microarray data normalization.BMC bioinformatics · 2007Article
- Comparison of normalization methods for CodeLink Bioarray data.BMC bioinformatics · 2005Article
- An algorithm for automatic evaluation of the spot quality in two-color DNA microarray experiments.BMC bioinformatics · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-biological factors give rise to unwanted variations in cDNA microarray data. There are many normalization methods designed to remove such variations. However, to date there have been few published systematic evaluations of these techniques for removing variations arising from dye biases in the context of downstream, higher-order analytical tasks such as classification.
resultsTen location normalization methods that adjust spatial- and/or intensity-dependent dye biases, and three scale methods that adjust scale differences were applied, individually and in combination, to five distinct, published, cancer biology-related cDNA microarray data sets. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) classification error was employed as the quantitative end-point for assessing the effectiveness of a normalization method. In particular, a known classifier, k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), was estimated from data normalized using a given technique, and the LOOCV error rate of the ensuing model was computed. We found that k-NN classifiers are sensitive to dye biases in the data. Using NONRM and GMEDIAN as baseline methods, our results show that single-bias-removal techniques which remove either spatial-dependent dye bias (referred later as spatial effect) or intensity-dependent dye bias (referred later as intensity effect) moderately reduce LOOCV classification errors; whereas double-bias-removal techniques which remove both spatial- and intensity effect reduce LOOCV classification errors even further. Of the 41 different strategies examined, three two-step processes, IGLOESS-SLFILTERW7, ISTSPLINE-SLLOESS and IGLOESS-SLLOESS, all of which removed intensity effect globally and spatial effect locally, appear to reduce LOOCV classification errors most consistently and effectively across all data sets. We also found that the investigated scale normalization methods do not reduce LOOCV classification error.
conclusionUsing LOOCV error of k-NNs as the evaluation criterion, three double-bias-removal normalization strategies, IGLOESS-SLFILTERW7, ISTSPLINE-SLLOESS and IGLOESS-SLLOESS, outperform other strategies for removing spatial effect, intensity effect and scale differences from cDNA microarray data. The apparent sensitivity of k-NN LOOCV classification error to dye biases suggests that this criterion provides an informative measure for evaluating normalization methods. All the computational tools used in this study were implemented using the R language for statistical computing and graphics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.