Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23855655›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013

A decision theory paradigm for evaluating identifier mapping and filtering methods using data integration.

Roger S Day, Kevin K McDade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Genes · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Roger S DayDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. day01@pitt.edu
Kevin K McDade

Funding

The internship in Biomedical Research, Informatics, and Computer Science (iBRIC): Biomedical Informatics and Data Science research experiences for students from Minority Serving InstitutionsT15LM007059 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI HARRY S HOCHHEISER · 1987 to 2026
$23.9M
Statistical methods for integromics discoveriesR01LM010144 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI LU, XINGHUA · 2009 to 2013
$1.6M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM 010144NLM NIH HHS T15 LM 007059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn bioinformatics, we pre-process raw data into a format ready for answering medical and biological questions. A key step in processing is labeling the measured features with the identities of the molecules purportedly assayed: "molecular identification" (MI). Biological meaning comes from identifying these molecular measurements correctly with actual molecular species. But MI can be incorrect. Identifier filtering (IDF) selects features with more trusted MI, leaving a smaller, but more correct dataset. Identifier mapping (IDM) is needed when an analyst is combining two high-throughput (HT) measurement platforms on the same samples. IDM produces ID pairs, one ID from each platform, where the mapping declares that the two analytes are associated through a causal path, direct or indirect (example: pairing an ID for an mRNA species with an ID for a protein species that is its putative translation). Many competing solutions for IDF and IDM exist. Analysts need a rigorous method for evaluating and comparing all these choices.

resultsWe describe a paradigm for critically evaluating and comparing IDF and IDM methods, guided by data on biological samples. The requirements are: a large set of biological samples, measurements on those samples from at least two high-throughput platforms, a model family connecting features from the platforms, and an association measure. From these ingredients, one fits a mixture model coupled to a decision framework. We demonstrate this evaluation paradigm in three settings: comparing performance of several bioinformatics resources for IDM between transcripts and proteins, comparing several published microarray probeset IDF methods and their combinations, and selecting optimal quality thresholds for tandem mass spectrometry spectral events.

conclusionsThe paradigm outlined here provides a data-grounded approach for evaluating the quality not just of IDM and IDF, but of any pre-processing step or pipeline. The results will help researchers to semantically integrate or filter data optimally, and help bioinformatics database curators to track changes in quality over time and even to troubleshoot causes of MI errors.

Indexed as

Decision TheoryEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleGene DosageGene Expression ProfilingHumansMicroRNAsProteinsProteomicsRNA, MessengerTandem Mass SpectrometryMicroRNAsProteinsRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID23855655
PMCPMC3734162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.