Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21044364›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2010

Comparison of multiplex meta analysis techniques for understanding the acute rejection of solid organ transplants.

Alexander A Morgan, Purvesh Khatri, Richard Hayden Jones, Minnie M Sarwal, Atul J Butte

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. CancerMA: a web-based tool for automatic meta-analysis of public cancer microarray data.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2012
    Article
  15. Applications of translational bioinformatics in transplantation.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2011
    Article
  16. Identifying biomarkers as diagnostic tools in kidney transplantation.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2011
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Alexander A MorganDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Purvesh Khatri
Richard Hayden Jones
Minnie M Sarwal
Atul J Butte

Funding

POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN MEDICAL INFORMATION SCIENCEST15LM007033 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SYLVIA KATINA PLEVRITIS · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
New NAPRTCS Trials in Steroid-Free ImmunosuppressionU01AI055795 · NIAID · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SALVATIERRA, OSCAR · 2003 to 2007
$7.8M
Defining Biomarkers in Pediatric Renal TransplantationR01AI061739 · NIAID · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SARWAL, MINNIE M · 2004 to 2007
$1.6M
Integrating Microarray and Proteomic Data by Ontology-based AnnotationR01LM009719 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BUTTE, ATUL J · 2008 to 2011
$1.1M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI061739NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI055795NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009719NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007033NLM NIH HHS T15 LM7033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombining the results of studies using highly parallelized measurements of gene expression such as microarrays and RNAseq offer unique challenges in meta analysis. Motivated by a need for a deeper understanding of organ transplant rejection, we combine the data from five separate studies to compare acute rejection versus stability after solid organ transplantation, and use this data to examine approaches to multiplex meta analysis.

resultsWe demonstrate that a commonly used parametric effect size estimate approach and a commonly used non-parametric method give very different results in prioritizing genes. The parametric method providing a meta effect estimate was superior at ranking genes based on our gold-standard of identifying immune response genes in the transplant rejection datasets.

conclusionDifferent methods of multiplex analysis can give substantially different results. The method which is best for any given application will likely depend on the particular domain, and it remains for future work to see if any one method is consistently better at identifying important biological signal across gene expression experiments.

Indexed as

Organ TransplantationGene ExpressionGene Expression ProfilingGraft RejectionMeta-Analysis as Topic

Identifiers

PMID21044364
PMCPMC2967747

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.