ArticlePloS one2013
Detection of patient subgroups with differential expression in omics data: a comprehensive comparison of univariate measures.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection of yet unknown subgroups showing differential gene or protein expression is a frequent goal in the analysis of modern molecular data. Applications range from cancer biology over developmental biology to toxicology. Often a control and an experimental group are compared, and subgroups can be characterized by differential expression for only a subgroup-specific set of genes or proteins. Finding such genes and corresponding patient subgroups can help in understanding pathological pathways, diagnosis and defining drug targets. The size of the subgroup and the type of differential expression determine the optimal strategy for subgroup identification. To date, commonly used software packages hardly provide statistical tests and methods for the detection of such subgroups. Different univariate methods for subgroup detection are characterized and compared, both on simulated and on real data. We present an advanced design for simulation studies: Data is simulated under different distributional assumptions for the expression of the subgroup, and performance results are compared against theoretical upper bounds. For each distribution, different degrees of deviation from the majority of observations are considered for the subgroup. We evaluate classical approaches as well as various new suggestions in the context of omics data, including outlier sum, PADGE, and kurtosis. We also propose the new FisherSum score. ROC curve analysis and AUC values are used to quantify the ability of the methods to distinguish between genes or proteins with and without certain subgroup patterns. In general, FisherSum for small subgroups and t-test for large subgroups achieve best results. We apply each method to a case-control study on Parkinson's disease and underline the biological benefit of the new method.
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.