ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2011
Biological assessment of robust noise models in microarray data analysis.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomarker-driven drug repurposing for NAFLD-associated hepatocellular carcinoma using machine learning integrated ensemble feature selection.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Generating synthetic multidimensional molecular time series data for machine learning: considerations.Frontiers in systems biology · 2023Article
- Comparison of Statistical Tests and Power Analysis for Phosphoproteomics Data.Journal of proteome research · 2020Article
- FarmTest: Factor-adjusted robust multiple testing with approximate false discovery control.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2019Article
- LARGE COVARIANCE ESTIMATION THROUGH ELLIPTICAL FACTOR MODELS.Annals of statistics · 2018Article
- Topic model-based mass spectrometric data analysis in cancer biomarker discovery studies.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- A Hybrid One-Way ANOVA Approach for the Robust and Efficient Estimation of Differential Gene Expression with Multiple Patterns.PloS one · 2015Article
- Robust modeling of differential gene expression data using normal/independent distributions: a Bayesian approach.PloS one · 2015Article
- Bayesian assignment of gene ontology terms to gene expression experiments.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2012Article
- Gene expression profiling in human neurodegenerative disease.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2012Review
- β-empirical Bayes inference and model diagnosis of microarray data.BMC bioinformatics · 2012Article
- Modeling skewness in human transcriptomes.PloS one · 2012Article
- PERT: a method for expression deconvolution of human blood samples from varied microenvironmental and developmental conditions.PLoS computational biology · 2012Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationAlthough several recently proposed analysis packages for microarray data can cope with heavy-tailed noise, many applications rely on Gaussian assumptions. Gaussian noise models foster computational efficiency. This comes, however, at the expense of increased sensitivity to outlying observations. Assessing potential insufficiencies of Gaussian noise in microarray data analysis is thus important and of general interest.
resultsWe propose to this end assessing different noise models on a large number of microarray experiments. The goodness of fit of noise models is quantified by a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of variance model, which predicts normalized expression values as a mixture of a Gaussian density and t-distributions with adjustable degrees of freedom. Inference of differentially expressed genes is taken into consideration at a second mixing level. For attaining far reaching validity, our investigations cover a wide range of analysis platforms and experimental settings. As the most striking result, we find irrespective of the chosen preprocessing and normalization method in all experiments that a heavy-tailed noise model is a better fit than a simple Gaussian. Further investigations revealed that an appropriate choice of noise model has a considerable influence on biological interpretations drawn at the level of inferred genes and gene ontology terms. We conclude from our investigation that neglecting the over dispersed noise in microarray data can mislead scientific discovery and suggest that the convenience of Gaussian-based modelling should be replaced by non-parametric approaches or other methods that account for heavy-tailed noise.
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.