ArticleBioinformation2007
Is there an alternative to increasing the sample size in microarray studies?
Article in Bioinformation, 2007. 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.
- Skeletal muscle gene expression in response to resistance exercise: sex specific regulation.BMC genomics · 2010Trial
- Article
- Exploiting dependencies of pairwise comparison outcomes to predict patterns of gene response.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Effects of sample size on differential gene expression, rank order and prediction accuracy of a gene signature.PloS one · 2013Article
- Cardiovascular genomics: a biomarker identification pipeline.IEEE transactions on information technology in biomedicine : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2012Review
- Analysis of DNA microarray expression data.Best practice & research. Clinical haematology · 2009Article
- How high is the level of technical noise in microarray data?Biology direct · 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
Our answer to the question posed in the title is negative. This intentionally provocative note discusses the issue of sample size in microarray studies from several angles. We suggest that the current view of microarrays as no more than a screening tool be changed and small sample studies no longer be considered appropriate.
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.