ArticleBioinformation2013
Genes selection comparative study in microarray data analysis.
Article in Bioinformation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Gene Expression Studies to Identify Significant Genes in AR, MTOR, MAPK Pathways and their Overlapping Regulatory Role in Prostate Cancer.Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2019Pooled it
- Dynamic regulatory network reconstruction for Alzheimer's disease based on matrix decomposition techniques.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In response to the rapid development of DNA Microarray Technologies, many differentially expressed genes selection algorithms have been developed, and different comparison studies of these algorithms have been done. However, it is not clear how these methods compare with each other, especially when we used different developments tools. Here, we considered three commonly used differentially expressed genes selection approaches, namely: Fold Change, T-test and SAM, using Bioinformatics Matlab Toolbox and R/BioConductor. We used two datasets, issued from the affymetrix technology, to present results of used methods and software's in gene selection process. The results, in terms of sensitivity and specificity, indicate that the behavior of SAM is better compared to Fold Change and T-test using R/BioConductor. While, no practical differences were observed between the three gene selection methods when using Bioinformatics Matlab Toolbox. In face of our result, the ROC curve shows that: on the one hand R/BioConductor using SAM is favored for microarray selection compared to the other methods. And, on the other hand, results of the three studied gene selection methods using Bioinformatics Matlab Toolbox are still comparable for the two datasets used.
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.