ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2015
Performance evaluation of DNA copy number segmentation methods.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comprehensive proteogenomic characterization of rare kidney tumors.Cell reports. Medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- A variational algorithm to detect the clonal copy number substructure of tumors from scRNA-seq data.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Histopathologic and proteogenomic heterogeneity reveals features of clear cell renal cell carcinoma aggressiveness.Cancer cell · 2023Article
- Proteogenomic insights into the biology and treatment of HPV-negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Cancer cell · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- DBS: a fast and informative segmentation algorithm for DNA copy number analysis.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Patterns of chromosomal copy-number alterations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.BMC cancer · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of bioinformatic or biostatistical methods are available for analyzing DNA copy number profiles measured from microarray or sequencing technologies. In the absence of rich enough gold standard data sets, the performance of these methods is generally assessed using unrealistic simulation studies, or based on small real data analyses. To make an objective and reproducible performance assessment, we have designed and implemented a framework to generate realistic DNA copy number profiles of cancer samples with known truth. These profiles are generated by resampling publicly available SNP microarray data from genomic regions with known copy-number state. The original data have been extracted from dilutions series of tumor cell lines with matched blood samples at several concentrations. Therefore, the signal-to-noise ratio of the generated profiles can be controlled through the (known) percentage of tumor cells in the sample. This article describes this framework and its application to a comparison study between methods for segmenting DNA copy number profiles from SNP microarrays. This study indicates that no single method is uniformly better than all others. It also helps identifying pros and cons of the compared methods as a function of biologically informative parameters, such as the fraction of tumor cells in the sample and the proportion of heterozygous markers. This comparison study may be reproduced using the open source and cross-platform R package jointseg, which implements the proposed data generation and evaluation framework: http://r-forge.r-project.org/R/?group_id=1562.
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.