Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24808906›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2014

categoryCompare, an analytical tool based on feature annotations.

Robert M Flight, Benjamin J Harrison, Fahim Mohammad, Mary B Bunge, Lawrence D F Moon, Jeffrey C Petruska, Eric C Rouchka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2018
    Article
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

7 authors.

Robert M FlightDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, University of Kentucky Lexington, KY, USA.
Benjamin J HarrisonDepartment of Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville Louisville, KY, USA ; Department of Neurological Surgery, Kentucky Spinal Cord Injury Research Center, University of Louisville Louisville, KY, USA.
Fahim MohammadDepartment of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA, USA.
Mary B BungeMiami Project to Cure Paralysis, Department of Neurological Surgery and Neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami, FL, USA.
Lawrence D F MoonNeurorestoration Group, Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Research, King's College London London, UK.
Jeffrey C PetruskaDepartment of Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville Louisville, KY, USA ; Department of Neurological Surgery, Kentucky Spinal Cord Injury Research Center, University of Louisville Louisville, KY, USA ; Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Louisville Louisville, KY, USA.
Eric C RouchkaBioinformatics and Biomedical Computing Laboratory, Department of Computer Engineering and Computer Science, University of Louisville Louisville, KY, USA.

Funding

WKU Lead Faculty AwardP20GM103436 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE · PI ERIC C ROUCHKA · 2012 to 2026
$60.1M
ZEBRAFISH VISUAL FUNCTION RECOVERY FOLLOWING OPTIC NERVE DAMAGEP20RR016481 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE · PI MATTINGLY, BRUCE A · 2001 to 2011
$34.8M
NCRR NIH HHS P20 RR016481NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of high-throughput-omics data initially focuses on relative or raw levels of a particular feature, such as an expression value for a transcript, protein, or metabolite. At a second level, analyses of annotations including known or predicted functions and associations of each individual feature, attempt to distill biological context. Most currently available comparative- and meta-analyses methods are dependent on the availability of identical features across data sets, and concentrate on determining features that are differentially expressed across experiments, some of which may be considered "biomarkers." The heterogeneity of measurement platforms and inherent variability of biological systems confounds the search for robust biomarkers indicative of a particular condition. In many instances, however, multiple data sets show involvement of common biological processes or signaling pathways, even though individual features are not commonly measured or differentially expressed between them. We developed a methodology, categoryCompare, for cross-platform and cross-sample comparison of high-throughput data at the annotation level. We assessed the utility of the approach using hypothetical data, as well as determining similarities and differences in the set of processes in two instances: (1) denervated skin vs. denervated muscle, and (2) colon from Crohn's disease vs. colon from ulcerative colitis (UC). The hypothetical data showed that in many cases comparing annotations gave superior results to comparing only at the gene level. Improved analytical results depended as well on the number of genes included in the annotation term, the amount of noise in relation to the number of genes expressing in unenriched annotation categories, and the specific method in which samples are combined. In the skin vs. muscle denervation comparison, the tissues demonstrated markedly different responses. The Crohn's vs. UC comparison showed gross similarities in inflammatory response in the two diseases, with particular processes specific to each disease.

Indexed as

comparative analysismeta-analysismetabolomicsproteomicstranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID24808906
PMCPMC4010757

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.