ArticleBioinformation2011
Comparison of methods for identifying differentially expressed genes across multiple conditions from microarray data.
Article in Bioinformation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early response index: a statistic to discover potential early stage disease biomarkers.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- A regression-based differential expression detection algorithm for microarray studies with ultra-low sample size.PloS one · 2015Article
- Hybrid-controlled neurofuzzy networks analysis resulting in genetic regulatory networks reconstruction.ISRN bioinformatics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Identification of genes differentially expressed across multiple conditions has become an important statistical problem in analyzing large-scale microarray data. Many statistical methods have been developed to address the challenging problem. Therefore, an extensive comparison among these statistical methods is extremely important for experimental scientists to choose a valid method for their data analysis. In this study, we conducted simulation studies to compare six statistical methods: the Bonferroni (B-) procedure, the Benjamini and Hochberg (BH-) procedure, the Local false discovery rate (Localfdr) method, the Optimal Discovery Procedure (ODP), the Ranking Analysis of F-statistics (RAF), and the Significant Analysis of Microarray data (SAM) in identifying differentially expressed genes. We demonstrated that the strength of treatment effect, the sample size, proportion of differentially expressed genes and variance of gene expression will significantly affect the performance of different methods. The simulated results show that ODP exhibits an extremely high power in indentifying differentially expressed genes, but significantly underestimates the False Discovery Rate (FDR) in all different data scenarios. The SAM has poor performance when the sample size is small, but is among the best-performing methods when the sample size is large. The B-procedure is stringent and thus has a low power in all data scenarios. Localfdr and RAF show comparable statistical behaviors with the BH-procedure with favorable power and conservativeness of FDR estimation. RAF performs the best when proportion of differentially expressed genes is small and treatment effect is weak, but Localfdr is better than RAF when proportion of differentially expressed genes is large.
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.