Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18186917›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008

Which missing value imputation method to use in expression profiles: a comparative study and two selection schemes.

Guy N Brock, John R Shaffer, Richard E Blakesley, Meredith J Lotz, George C Tseng

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Big Data in Gastroenterology Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Cell-specific prediction and application of drug-induced gene expression profiles.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Data Imputation in Epistatic MAPs by Network-Guided Matrix Completion.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2015
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Guy N BrockDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Information Sciences, Universtiy of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA. guy.brock@louisville.edu
John R Shaffer
Richard E Blakesley
Meredith J Lotz
George C Tseng

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstitutionKL2RR024154 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2006 to 2011
$22.2M
Strategic Vision & Impact on Environmental HealthP30ES014443 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE · PI RAMOS, KENNETH S. · 2007 to 2010
$4.4M
Training Biostatisticians in Psychiatric ResearchT32MH073451 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI MAZUMDAR, SATI · 2005 to 2009
$488k
DISCOVERING GENES FOR MENTAL HEALTHT32MH020053 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WEEKS, DANIEL E · 2000 to 2004
$451k
NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024154-02NIEHS NIH HHS 1P30ES014443NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH073451-01NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH20053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGene expression data frequently contain missing values, however, most down-stream analyses for microarray experiments require complete data. In the literature many methods have been proposed to estimate missing values via information of the correlation patterns within the gene expression matrix. Each method has its own advantages, but the specific conditions for which each method is preferred remains largely unclear. In this report we describe an extensive evaluation of eight current imputation methods on multiple types of microarray experiments, including time series, multiple exposures, and multiple exposures x time series data. We then introduce two complementary selection schemes for determining the most appropriate imputation method for any given data set.

resultsWe found that the optimal imputation algorithms (LSA, LLS, and BPCA) are all highly competitive with each other, and that no method is uniformly superior in all the data sets we examined. The success of each method can also depend on the underlying "complexity" of the expression data, where we take complexity to indicate the difficulty in mapping the gene expression matrix to a lower-dimensional subspace. We developed an entropy measure to quantify the complexity of expression matrixes and found that, by incorporating this information, the entropy-based selection (EBS) scheme is useful for selecting an appropriate imputation algorithm. We further propose a simulation-based self-training selection (STS) scheme. This technique has been used previously for microarray data imputation, but for different purposes. The scheme selects the optimal or near-optimal method with high accuracy but at an increased computational cost.

conclusionOur findings provide insight into the problem of which imputation method is optimal for a given data set. Three top-performing methods (LSA, LLS and BPCA) are competitive with each other. Global-based imputation methods (PLS, SVD, BPCA) performed better on mcroarray data with lower complexity, while neighbour-based methods (KNN, OLS, LSA, LLS) performed better in data with higher complexity. We also found that the EBS and STS schemes serve as complementary and effective tools for selecting the optimal imputation algorithm.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtifactsSoftwareData Interpretation, StatisticalGene Expression ProfilingOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSample SizeSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID18186917
PMCPMC2253514

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.