Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16780582›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006

Improving missing value imputation of microarray data by using spot quality weights.

Peter Johansson, Jari Häkkinen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter JohanssonComputational Biology, Department of Theoretical Physics, Lund University, SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden. peter@thep.lu.se
Jari Häkkinen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicroarray technology has become popular for gene expression profiling, and many analysis tools have been developed for data interpretation. Most of these tools require complete data, but measurement values are often missing A way to overcome the problem of incomplete data is to impute the missing data before analysis. Many imputation methods have been suggested, some naïve and other more sophisticated taking into account correlation in data. However, these methods are binary in the sense that each spot is considered either missing or present. Hence, they are depending on a cutoff separating poor spots from good spots. We suggest a different approach in which a continuous spot quality weight is built into the imputation methods, allowing for smooth imputations of all spots to larger or lesser degree.

resultsWe assessed several imputation methods on three data sets containing replicate measurements, and found that weighted methods performed better than non-weighted methods. Of the compared methods, best performance and robustness were achieved with the weighted nearest neighbours method (WeNNI), in which both spot quality and correlations between genes were included in the imputation.

conclusionIncluding a measure of spot quality improves the accuracy of the missing value imputation. WeNNI, the proposed method is more accurate and less sensitive to parameters than the widely used kNNimpute and LSimpute algorithms.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, FungalGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticAlgorithmsBreast NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorData Interpretation, StatisticalGene Expression ProfilingHumansMelanomaModels, StatisticalMycorrhizaeOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID16780582
PMCPMC1533869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.