ArticleCancer informatics2008
A practical multifaceted approach to selecting differentially expressed genes.
Article in Cancer informatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Consider a gene expression array study comparing two groups of subjects where the goal is to explore a large number of genes in order to select for further investigation a subset that appear to be differently expressed. There has been much statistical research into the development of formal methods for designating genes as differentially expressed. These procedures control error rates such as the false detection rate or family wise error rate. We contend however that other statistical considerations are also relevant to the task of gene selection. These include the extent of differential expression and the strength of evidence for differential expression at a gene. Using real and simulated data we first demonstrate that a proper exploratory analysis should evaluate these aspects as well as decision rules that control error rates. We propose a new measure called the mp-value that quantifies strength of evidence for differential expression. The mp-values are calculated with a resampling based algorithm taking into account the multiplicity and dependence encountered in microarray data. In contrast to traditional p-values our mp-values do not depend on specification of a decision rule for their definition. They are simply descriptive in nature. We contrast the mp-values with multiple testing p-values in the context of data from a breast cancer prognosis study and from a simulation model.
Identifiers
19455259PMC2675859What 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.