Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23814640›Full record

ArticleStatistics and its interface2012

Statistical Methods for Proteomic Biomarker Discovery based on Feature Extraction or Functional Modeling Approaches.

Jeffrey S Morris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics and its interface, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Jeffrey S Morris

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Adaptive Methodology for Functional Biomedical DataR01CA107304 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI MORRIS, JEFFREY S · 2004 to 2011
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA107304
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, developments in molecular biotechnology have led to the increased promise of detecting and validating biomarkers, or molecular markers that relate to various biological or medical outcomes. Proteomics, the direct study of proteins in biological samples, plays an important role in the biomarker discovery process. These technologies produce complex, high dimensional functional and image data that present many analytical challenges that must be addressed properly for effective comparative proteomics studies that can yield potential biomarkers. Specific challenges include experimental design, preprocessing, feature extraction, and statistical analysis accounting for the inherent multiple testing issues. This paper reviews various computational aspects of comparative proteomic studies, and summarizes contributions I along with numerous collaborators have made. First, there is an overview of comparative proteomics technologies, followed by a discussion of important experimental design and preprocessing issues that must be considered before statistical analysis can be done. Next, the two key approaches to analyzing proteomics data, feature extraction and functional modeling, are described. Feature extraction involves detection and quantification of discrete features like peaks or spots that theoretically correspond to different proteins in the sample. After an overview of the feature extraction approach, specific methods for mass spectrometry (

Indexed as

2D Gel ElectrophoresisBayesian MethodsBiomarkersClassificationFalse Discovery RateFunctional Data AnalysisFunctional Mixed ModelsMALDI-TOFMass SpectrometryMultiple TestingNonparametric RegressionProteomicsReproducibilityRobust RegressionWavelets

Identifiers

PMID23814640
PMCPMC3693398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.