ArticleCancer informatics2007
Normalized, segmented or called aCGH data?
Article in Cancer informatics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancer gene prioritization by integrative analysis of mRNA expression and DNA copy number data: a comparative review.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2013Review
- Article
- Comparative analysis of algorithms for integration of copy number and expression data.Nature methods · 2012Article
- Genome structural variation discovery and genotyping.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2011Review
- FACADE: a fast and sensitive algorithm for the segmentation and calling of high resolution array CGH data.Nucleic acids research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) is a high-throughput lab technique to measure genome-wide chromosomal copy numbers. Data from aCGH experiments require extensive pre-processing, which consists of three steps: normalization, segmentation and calling. Each of these pre-processing steps yields a different data set: normalized data, segmented data, and called data. Publications using aCGH base their findings on data from all stages of the pre-processing. Hence, there is no consensus on which should be used for further down-stream analysis. This consensus is however important for correct reporting of findings, and comparison of results from different studies. We discuss several issues that should be taken into account when deciding on which data are to be used. We express the believe that called data are best used, but would welcome opposing views.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19455251PMC2675832W1501929801What 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.