ArticlePloS one2014
Increasing consistency of disease biomarker prediction across datasets.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inherent variability limits clinical utility of reproducible Parkinson's transcriptomics signatures.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- The identification of a NAging · 2024Article
- Early-stage idiopathic Parkinson's disease is associated with reduced circular RNA expression.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2024Article
- Microarray Meta-Analysis and Cross-Platform Normalization: Integrative Genomics for Robust Biomarker Discovery.Microarrays (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Review
- Low-variance RNAs identify Parkinson's disease molecular signature in blood.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2015Article
- Article
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
Microarray studies with human subjects often have limited sample sizes which hampers the ability to detect reliable biomarkers associated with disease and motivates the need to aggregate data across studies. However, human gene expression measurements may be influenced by many non-random factors such as genetics, sample preparations, and tissue heterogeneity. These factors can contribute to a lack of agreement among related studies, limiting the utility of their aggregation. We show that it is feasible to carry out an automatic correction of individual datasets to reduce the effect of such 'latent variables' (without prior knowledge of the variables) in such a way that datasets addressing the same condition show better agreement once each is corrected. We build our approach on the method of surrogate variable analysis but we demonstrate that the original algorithm is unsuitable for the analysis of human tissue samples that are mixtures of different cell types. We propose a modification to SVA that is crucial to obtaining the improvement in agreement that we observe. We develop our method on a compendium of multiple sclerosis data and verify it on an independent compendium of Parkinson's disease datasets. In both cases, we show that our method is able to improve agreement across varying study designs, platforms, and tissues. This approach has the potential for wide applicability to any field where lack of inter-study agreement has been a concern.
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.