ArticleStatistics in medicine2013
Modeling considerations for using expression data from multiple species.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Although genome-wide expression data sets from multiple species are now more commonly generated, there have been few studies on how to best integrate this type of correlated data into models. Starting with a single-species, linear regression model that predicts transcription factor binding sites as a case study, we investigated how best to take into account the correlated expression data when extending this model to multiple species. Using a multivariate regression model, we accounted for the phylogenetic relationships among the species in two ways: (i) a repeated-measures model, where the error term is constrained; and (ii) a Bayesian hierarchical model, where the prior distributions of the regression coefficients are constrained. We show that both multiple-species models improve predictive performance over the single-species model. When compared with each other, the repeated-measures model outperformed the Bayesian model. We suggest a possible explanation for the better performance of the model with the constrained error term.
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.