Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19228411›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009

RankAggreg, an R package for weighted rank aggregation.

Vasyl Pihur, Susmita Datta, Somnath Datta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

115 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Screening of Stable Reference Genes inVeterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Vasyl PihurDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. v0pihu01@louisville.edu
Susmita Datta
Somnath Datta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearchers in the field of bioinformatics often face a challenge of combining several ordered lists in a proper and efficient manner. Rank aggregation techniques offer a general and flexible framework that allows one to objectively perform the necessary aggregation. With the rapid growth of high-throughput genomic and proteomic studies, the potential utility of rank aggregation in the context of meta-analysis becomes even more apparent. One of the major strengths of rank-based aggregation is the ability to combine lists coming from different sources and platforms, for example different microarray chips, which may or may not be directly comparable otherwise.

resultsThe RankAggreg package provides two methods for combining the ordered lists: the Cross-Entropy method and the Genetic Algorithm. Two examples of rank aggregation using the package are given in the manuscript: one in the context of clustering based on gene expression, and the other one in the context of meta-analysis of prostate cancer microarray experiments.

conclusionThe two examples described in the manuscript clearly show the utility of the RankAggreg package in the current bioinformatics context where ordered lists are routinely produced as a result of modern high-throughput technologies.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSoftwareCluster AnalysisComputational BiologyGene Expression ProfilingOligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis

Identifiers

PMID19228411
PMCPMC2669484

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.