ArticleCancer research and treatment2007
An attempt for combining microarray data sets by adjusting gene expressions.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- spatiAlign: an unsupervised contrastive learning model for data integration of spatially resolved transcriptomics.GigaScience · 2024Article
- reComBat: batch-effect removal in large-scale multi-source gene-expression data integration.Bioinformatics advances · 2022Article
- A Novel Statistical Method to Diagnose, Quantify and Correct Batch Effects in Genomic Studies.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Identification of genes related to a synergistic effect of taxane and suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid combination treatment in gastric cancer cells.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe diverse experimental environments in microarray technology, such as the different platforms or different RNA sources, can cause biases in the analysis of multiple microarrays. These systematic effects present a substantial obstacle for the analysis of microarray data, and the resulting information may be inconsistent and unreliable. Therefore, we introduced a simple integration method for combining microarray data sets that are derived from different experimental conditions, and we expected that more reliable information can be detected from the combined data set rather than from the separated data sets. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis method is based on the distributions of the gene expression ratios among the different microarray data sets and it transforms, gene by gene, the gene expression ratios into the form of the reference data set. The efficiency of the proposed integration method was evaluated using two microarray data sets, which were derived from different RNA sources, and a newly defined measure, the mixture score.
resultsThe proposed integration method intermixed the two data sets that were obtained from different RNA sources, which in turn reduced the experimental bias between the two data sets, and the mixture score increased by 24.2%. A data set combined by the proposed method preserved the inter-group relationship of the separated data sets.
conclusionThe proposed method worked well in adjusting systematic biases, including the source effect. The ability to use an effectively integrated microarray data set yields more reliable results due to the larger sample size and this also decreases the chance of false negatives.
Indexed as
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.