ArticleOncotarget2015
A network-based method to evaluate quality of reproducibility of differential expression in cancer genomics studies.
Article in Oncotarget, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing reproducibility of gene expression analysis with known protein functional relationships: The concept of well-associated protein.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
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
backgroundPersonalized cancer treatments depend on the determination of a patient's genetic status according to known genetic profiles for which targeted treatments exist. Such genetic profiles must be scientifically validated before they is applied to general patient population. Reproducibility of findings that support such genetic profiles is a fundamental challenge in validation studies. The percentage of overlapping genes (POG) criterion and derivative methods produce unstable and misleading results. Furthermore, in a complex disease, comparisons between different tumor subtypes can produce high POG scores that do not capture the consistencies in the functions.
resultsWe focused on the quality rather than the quantity of the overlapping genes. We defined the rank value of each gene according to importance or quality by PageRank on basis of a particular topological structure. Then, we used the p-value of the rank-sum of the overlapping genes (PRSOG) to evaluate the quality of reproducibility. Though the POG scores were low in different studies of the same disease, the PRSOG was statistically significant, which suggests that sets of differentially expressed genes might be highly reproducible.
conclusionsEvaluations of eight datasets from breast cancer, lung cancer and four other disorders indicate that quality-based PRSOG method performs better than a quantity-based method. Our analysis of the components of the sets of overlapping genes supports the utility of the PRSOG method.
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.