Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22628520›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2012

Application of survival analysis methodology to the quantitative analysis of LC-MS proteomics data.

Carmen D Tekwe, Raymond J Carroll, Alan R Dabney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. High-resolution metabolomic profiling of Alzheimer's disease in plasma.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Accounting for undetected compounds in statistical analyses of mass spectrometry 'omic studies.Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology · 2013
    Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Carmen D TekweDepartment of Statistics, 3143 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3143, USA. ctekwe@stat.tamu.edu
Raymond J Carroll
Alan R Dabney

Funding

Nutrition, Biostatistics and BioinformaticsR25CA090301 · NCI · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM · PI CARROLL, RAYMOND J. · 2001 to 2015
$7.6M
Measurement Error, Nutrition and Breast/Colon CancerR37CA057030 · NCI · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM · PI CARROLL, RAYMOND J. · 2005 to 2014
$3.3M
MEASUREMENT ERROR, NUTRITION AND BREAST/COLON CANCERR01CA057030 · NCI · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM · PI CARROLL, RAYMOND J. · 1992 to 2004
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R25 CA090301NCI NIH HHS R27-CA057030NCI NIH HHS R37 CA057030PHS HHS R25T - 090301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationProtein abundance in quantitative proteomics is often based on observed spectral features derived from liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS) or LC-MS/MS experiments. Peak intensities are largely non-normal in distribution. Furthermore, LC-MS-based proteomics data frequently have large proportions of missing peak intensities due to censoring mechanisms on low-abundance spectral features. Recognizing that the observed peak intensities detected with the LC-MS method are all positive, skewed and often left-censored, we propose using survival methodology to carry out differential expression analysis of proteins. Various standard statistical techniques including non-parametric tests such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank sum tests, and the parametric survival model and accelerated failure time-model with log-normal, log-logistic and Weibull distributions were used to detect any differentially expressed proteins. The statistical operating characteristics of each method are explored using both real and simulated datasets.

resultsSurvival methods generally have greater statistical power than standard differential expression methods when the proportion of missing protein level data is 5% or more. In particular, the AFT models we consider consistently achieve greater statistical power than standard testing procedures, with the discrepancy widening with increasing missingness in the proportions. AVAILABILITY: The testing procedures discussed in this article can all be performed using readily available software such as R. The R codes are provided as supplemental materials. CONTACT: ctekwe@stat.tamu.edu.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalSoftwareStatistics, NonparametricChromatography, LiquidComputer SimulationDiabetes MellitusHumansLikelihood FunctionsMass SpectrometryProteinsProteomicsTandem Mass SpectrometryProteins

Identifiers

PMID22628520
PMCPMC3400956

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.