ArticleIEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics
Improving Retrieval Efficacy of Homology Searches Using the False Discovery Rate.
Article in IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past few decades, discovery based on sequence homology has become a widely accepted practice. Consequently, comparative accuracy of retrieval algorithms (e.g., BLAST) has been rigorously studied for improvement. Unlike most components of retrieval algorithms, the E-value threshold criterion has yet to be thoroughly investigated. An investigation of the threshold is important as it exclusively dictates which sequences are declared relevant and irrelevant. In this paper, we introduce the false discovery rate (FDR) statistic as a replacement for the uniform threshold criterion in order to improve efficacy in retrieval systems. Using NCBI's BLAST and PSI-BLAST software packages, we demonstrate the applicability of such a replacement in both non-iterative (BLASTFDR) and iterative (PSI-BLAST(FDR)) homology searches. For each application, we performed an evaluation of retrieval efficacy with five different multiple testing methods on a large training database. For each algorithm, we choose the best performing method, Benjamini-Hochberg, as the default statistic. As measured by the threshold average precision, BLAST(FDR) yielded 14.1 percent better retrieval performance than BLAST on a large (5,161 queries) test database and PSI-BLAST(FDR) attained 11.8 percent better retrieval performance than PSI-BLAST. The C++ source code specific to BLAST(FDR) and PSI-BLAST(FDR) and instructions are available at http://www.cs.mtsu.edu/~hcarroll/blast_fdr/.
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.