ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013
A decision theory paradigm for evaluating identifier mapping and filtering methods using data integration.
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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A kernel density estimation-based approach for quantifying O-GlcNAcylation dysregulation in cancer from gene expression data.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- SAMD4B: a novel prognostic biomarker of endometrial carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- The Emerging Role of FAM171A2 in Gynecological Malignancies: Bioinformatic Insights from UCEC and Ovarian Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Bioinformatics Analysis Identifies Lipid Droplet-Associated Gene Signatures as Promising Prognostic and Diagnostic Models for Endometrial Cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- UNC93B1: a novel immune-related prognostic biomarker in breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Bioinformatics Based Drug Repurposing Approach for Breast and Gynecological Cancers:European journal of breast health · 2025Article
- Pyroptosis-Related Gene Signatures Enable Robustly Diagnosis, Prognosis and Immune Responses Prediction in Uterine Corpus Endometrial Carcinoma.Journal of Cancer · 2025Article
- CPA4 as a biomarker promotes the proliferation, migration and metastasis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma cells.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2024Article
- A comprehensive analysis and experimental validation of TK1 in uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- TGFA expression is associated with poor prognosis and promotes the development of cervical cancer.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2024Article
- CD72, a new immune checkpoint molecule, is a novel prognostic biomarker for kidney renal clear cell carcinoma.European journal of medical research · 2023Article
- RNA 5-Methylcytosine regulators are associated with cell adhesion and predict prognosis of endometrial cancer.Translational cancer research · 2023Article
- Is HOXA5 a Novel Prognostic Biomarker for Uterine Corpus Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma?International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- TRIM28 modulates nuclear receptor signaling to regulate uterine function.Nature communications · 2023Article
- PPP1R14B is a diagnostic prognostic marker in patients with uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2023Article
- CXCR3 predicts the prognosis of endometrial adenocarcinoma.BMC medical genomics · 2023Article
- Identification of novel key genes associated with uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma progression and prognosis.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Solute Carrier Family 7 Member 11 (SLC7A11) is a Potential Prognostic Biomarker in Uterine Corpus Endometrial Carcinoma.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
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
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
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.