ArticlePloS one2013
Automatic peak selection by a Benjamini-Hochberg-based algorithm.
Article in PloS one, 2013. 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.
- Analysis of Intestinal Bacterial Microbiota in Individuals with and without Chronic Low Back Pain.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- Potential Molecular Mechanisms and Remdesivir Treatment for Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 Infection/COVID 19 Through RNA Sequencing and Bioinformatics Analysis.Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2021Article
- Identification of Key Pathways and Genes in Obesity Using Bioinformatics Analysis and Molecular Docking Studies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- Leveraging 16S rRNA Microbiome Sequencing Data to Identify Bacterial Signatures for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- A novel prognostic model based on multi-omics features predicts the prognosis of colon cancer patients.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Prioritization and comprehensive analysis of genes associated with melanoma.Oncology letters · 2019Article
- A Swath Label-Free Proteomics insight into the FaahScientific reports · 2018Article
- A fast fiducial marker tracking model for fully automatic alignment in electron tomography.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- Automation of peak-tracking analysis of stepwise perturbed NMR spectra.Journal of biomolecular NMR · 2017Article
- Revealing the potential pathogenesis of glioma by utilizing a glioma associated protein-protein interaction network.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2015Article
- Median Modified Wiener Filter for nonlinear adaptive spatial denoising of protein NMR multidimensional spectra.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- An automated framework for NMR resonance assignment through simultaneous slice picking and spin system forming.Journal of biomolecular NMR · 2014Article
- LigandRFs: random forest ensemble to identify ligand-binding residues from sequence information alone.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Recent advances in computational methods for nuclear magnetic resonance data processing.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A common issue in bioinformatics is that computational methods often generate a large number of predictions sorted according to certain confidence scores. A key problem is then determining how many predictions must be selected to include most of the true predictions while maintaining reasonably high precision. In nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based protein structure determination, for instance, computational peak picking methods are becoming more and more common, although expert-knowledge remains the method of choice to determine how many peaks among thousands of candidate peaks should be taken into consideration to capture the true peaks. Here, we propose a Benjamini-Hochberg (B-H)-based approach that automatically selects the number of peaks. We formulate the peak selection problem as a multiple testing problem. Given a candidate peak list sorted by either volumes or intensities, we first convert the peaks into [Formula: see text]-values and then apply the B-H-based algorithm to automatically select the number of peaks. The proposed approach is tested on the state-of-the-art peak picking methods, including WaVPeak [1] and PICKY [2]. Compared with the traditional fixed number-based approach, our approach returns significantly more true peaks. For instance, by combining WaVPeak or PICKY with the proposed method, the missing peak rates are on average reduced by 20% and 26%, respectively, in a benchmark set of 32 spectra extracted from eight proteins. The consensus of the B-H-selected peaks from both WaVPeak and PICKY achieves 88% recall and 83% precision, which significantly outperforms each individual method and the consensus method without using the B-H algorithm. The proposed method can be used as a standard procedure for any peak picking method and straightforwardly applied to some other prediction selection problems in bioinformatics. The source code, documentation and example data of the proposed method is available at http://sfb.kaust.edu.sa/pages/software.aspx.
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.