ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006
Improving missing value imputation of microarray data by using spot quality weights.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial assessments in texture analysis: what the radiologist needs to know.Frontiers in radiology · 2023Review
- Missing value imputation for microarray data: a comprehensive comparison study and a web tool.BMC systems biology · 2013Article
- Advanced spot quality analysis in two-colour microarray experiments.BMC research notes · 2008Article
- Missing value imputation for microarray gene expression data using histone acetylation information.BMC bioinformatics · 2008Article
- Accounting for one-channel depletion improves missing value imputation in 2-dye microarray data.BMC genomics · 2008Article
- Which missing value imputation method to use in expression profiles: a comparative study and two selection schemes.BMC bioinformatics · 2008Article
- Robust imputation method for missing values in microarray data.BMC bioinformatics · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.