Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23044539›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2012

Gene set analysis for self-contained tests: complex null and specific alternative hypotheses.

Y Rahmatallah, F Emmert-Streib, G Glazko

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Y RahmatallahDivision of Biomedical Informatics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA. yrahmatallah@uams.edu
F Emmert-Streib
G Glazko

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR029884 · NCRR · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI LOWERY, CURTIS L · 2009 to 2011
$11.4M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR029884NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR029884
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationThe analysis of differentially expressed gene sets became a routine in the analyses of gene expression data. There is a multitude of tests available, ranging from aggregation tests that summarize gene-level statistics for a gene set to true multivariate tests, accounting for intergene correlations. Most of them detect complex departures from the null hypothesis but when the null hypothesis is rejected, the specific alternative leading to the rejection is not easily identifiable.

resultsIn this article we compare the power and Type I error rates of minimum-spanning tree (MST)-based non-parametric multivariate tests with several multivariate and aggregation tests, which are frequently used for pathway analyses. In our simulation study, we demonstrate that MST-based tests have power that is for many settings comparable with the power of conventional approaches, but outperform them in specific regions of the parameter space corresponding to biologically relevant configurations. Further, we find for simulated and for gene expression data that MST-based tests discriminate well against shift and scale alternatives. As a general result, we suggest a two-step practical analysis strategy that may increase the interpretability of experimental data: first, apply the most powerful multivariate test to find the subset of pathways for which the null hypothesis is rejected and second, apply MST-based tests to these pathways to select those that support specific alternative hypotheses. CONTACT: gvglazko@uams.edu or yrahmatallah@uams.edu SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingComputational BiologyComputer SimulationHumansModels, StatisticalMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID23044539
PMCPMC3509490

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.