Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24359104›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013

Meta-analysis methods for combining multiple expression profiles: comparisons, statistical characterization and an application guideline.

Lun-Ching Chang, Hui-Min Lin, Etienne Sibille, George C Tseng

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 78 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 18 pooled it
–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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Statistical genomics in rare cancer.Seminars in cancer biology · 2020
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. A Meta-Analysis of Alzheimer's Disease Brain Transcriptomic Data.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2019
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Lun-Ching Chang
Hui-Min Lin
Etienne Sibille
George C TsengDepartment of Biostatistics, Graduate school of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ctseng@pitt.edu.

Funding

Integrative Analysis of Transcriptome, Genome and Disease Diversity in MDDR21MH094862 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SIBILLE, ETIENNE L, TSENG, GEORGE C. · 2012 to 2013
$371k
NIMH NIH HHS R21MH094862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs high-throughput genomic technologies become accurate and affordable, an increasing number of data sets have been accumulated in the public domain and genomic information integration and meta-analysis have become routine in biomedical research. In this paper, we focus on microarray meta-analysis, where multiple microarray studies with relevant biological hypotheses are combined in order to improve candidate marker detection. Many methods have been developed and applied in the literature, but their performance and properties have only been minimally investigated. There is currently no clear conclusion or guideline as to the proper choice of a meta-analysis method given an application; the decision essentially requires both statistical and biological considerations.

resultsWe performed 12 microarray meta-analysis methods for combining multiple simulated expression profiles, and such methods can be categorized for different hypothesis setting purposes: (1) HS(A): DE genes with non-zero effect sizes in all studies, (2) HS(B): DE genes with non-zero effect sizes in one or more studies and (3) HS(r): DE gene with non-zero effect in "majority" of studies. We then performed a comprehensive comparative analysis through six large-scale real applications using four quantitative statistical evaluation criteria: detection capability, biological association, stability and robustness. We elucidated hypothesis settings behind the methods and further apply multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and an entropy measure to characterize the meta-analysis methods and data structure, respectively.

conclusionsThe aggregated results from the simulation study categorized the 12 methods into three hypothesis settings (HS(A), HS(B), and HS(r)). Evaluation in real data and results from MDS and entropy analyses provided an insightful and practical guideline to the choice of the most suitable method in a given application. All source files for simulation and real data are available on the author's publication website.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGenomicsMeta-Analysis as TopicOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic MarkersGenomeGuidelines as TopicHumansGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID24359104
PMCPMC3898528

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.