Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21087509›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2010

Comparative study of unsupervised dimension reduction techniques for the visualization of microarray gene expression data.

Christoph Bartenhagen, Hans-Ulrich Klein, Christian Ruckert, Xiaoyi Jiang, Martin Dugas

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 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Unsupervised dimensionality reduction for exposome research.Current opinion in environmental science & health · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. On the Use ofComputational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Christoph BartenhagenDepartment of Medical Informatics and Biomathematics, University of Münster, Domagkstraße 9, 48149 Münster, Germany. Christoph.Bartenhagen@ukmuenster.de
Hans-Ulrich Klein
Christian Ruckert
Xiaoyi Jiang
Martin Dugas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisualization of DNA microarray data in two or three dimensional spaces is an important exploratory analysis step in order to detect quality issues or to generate new hypotheses. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a widely used linear method to define the mapping between the high-dimensional data and its low-dimensional representation. During the last decade, many new nonlinear methods for dimension reduction have been proposed, but it is still unclear how well these methods capture the underlying structure of microarray gene expression data. In this study, we assessed the performance of the PCA approach and of six nonlinear dimension reduction methods, namely Kernel PCA, Locally Linear Embedding, Isomap, Diffusion Maps, Laplacian Eigenmaps and Maximum Variance Unfolding, in terms of visualization of microarray data.

resultsA systematic benchmark, consisting of Support Vector Machine classification, cluster validation and noise evaluations was applied to ten microarray and several simulated datasets. Significant differences between PCA and most of the nonlinear methods were observed in two and three dimensional target spaces. With an increasing number of dimensions and an increasing number of differentially expressed genes, all methods showed similar performance. PCA and Diffusion Maps responded less sensitive to noise than the other nonlinear methods.

conclusionsLocally Linear Embedding and Isomap showed a superior performance on all datasets. In very low-dimensional representations and with few differentially expressed genes, these two methods preserve more of the underlying structure of the data than PCA, and thus are favorable alternatives for the visualization of microarray data.

Indexed as

Principal Component AnalysisAlgorithmsDatabases, FactualGene Expression ProfilingOligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis

Identifiers

PMID21087509
PMCPMC2998530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.