ArticleBioinformation2011
Adaptive thresholds to detect differentially expressed genes in microarray data.
Article in Bioinformation, 2011. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To detect changes in gene expression data from microarrays, a fixed threshold for fold difference is used widely. However, it is not always guaranteed that a threshold value which is appropriate for highly expressed genes is suitable for lowly expressed genes. In this study, aiming at detecting truly differentially expressed genes from a wide expression range, we proposed an adaptive threshold method (AT). The adaptive thresholds, which have different values for different expression levels, are calculated based on two measurements under the same condition. The sensitivity, specificity and false discovery rate (FDR) of AT were investigated by simulations. The sensitivity and specificity under various noise conditions were greater than 89.7% and 99.32%, respectively. The FDR was smaller than 0.27. These results demonstrated the reliability of the method.
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.