ArticleThe annals of applied statistics2012
Exact statistical tests for the intersection of independent lists of genes.
Article in The annals of applied statistics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Comprehensive analysis of normal adjacent to tumor transcriptomes.Nature communications · 2017Article
- Analogous mechanism regulating formation of neocortical basal radial glia and cerebellar Bergmann glia.eLife · 2017Article
- Racial Differences in Misclassification of Healthy Eating Based on Food Frequency Questionnaire and 24-Hour Dietary Recalls.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2017Observational
- Strategies for Integrated Analysis of Genetic, Epigenetic, and Gene Expression Variation in Cancer: Addressing the Challenges.Frontiers in genetics · 2016Review
- Efficient Test and Visualization of Multi-Set Intersections.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- BRAIN NETWORKS. Correlated gene expression supports synchronous activity in brain networks.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2015Article
- Finding genetic overlaps among diseases based on ranked gene lists.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2015Article
- The transcription factor Cux1 in cerebellar granule cell development and medulloblastoma pathogenesis.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2014Article
- Deciding whether follow-up studies have replicated findings in a preliminary large-scale omics study.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014Article
- Metabolomics reveals signature of mitochondrial dysfunction in diabetic kidney disease.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2013 · on this mapArticle
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
Abstract
Public data repositories have enabled researchers to compare results across multiple genomic studies in order to replicate findings. A common approach is to first rank genes according to an hypothesis of interest within each study. Then, lists of the top-ranked genes within each study are compared across studies. Genes recaptured as highly ranked (usually above some threshold) in multiple studies are considered to be significant. However, this comparison strategy often remains informal, in that Type I error and false discovery rate are usually uncontrolled. In this paper, we formalize an inferential strategy for this kind of list-intersection discovery test. We show how to compute a p-value associated with a `recaptured' set of genes, using a closed-form Poisson approximation to the distribution of the size of the recaptured set. The distribution of the test statistic depends on the rank threshold and the number of studies within which a gene must be recaptured. We use a Poisson approximation to investigate operating characteristics of the test. We give practical guidance on how to design a bioinformatic list-intersection study with prespecified control of Type I error (at the set level) and false discovery rate (at the gene level). We show how choice of test parameters will affect the expected proportion of significant genes identified. We present a strategy for identifying optimal choice of parameters, depending on the particular alternative hypothesis which might hold. We illustrate our methods using prostate cancer gene-expression datasets from the curated Oncomine database.
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.