ArticlePeerJ2015
Ranking, selecting, and prioritising genes with desirability functions.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. 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.
- Review
- Identification of gene networks mediating regional resistance to tauopathy in late-onset Alzheimer's disease.PLoS genetics · 2023Article
- Druggable transcriptomic pathways revealed in Parkinson's patient-derived midbrain neurons.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2022Article
- Knowledge graph-based recommendation framework identifies drivers of resistance in EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Genetic associations at regulatory phenotypes improve fine-mapping of causal variants for 12 immune-mediated diseases.Nature genetics · 2022Article
- integRATE: a desirability-based data integration framework for the prioritization of candidate genes across heterogeneous omics and its application to preterm birth.BMC medical genomics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In functional genomics experiments, researchers often select genes to follow-up or validate from a long list of differentially expressed genes. Typically, sharp thresholds are used to bin genes into groups such as significant/non-significant or fold change above/below a cut-off value, and ad hoc criteria are also used such as favouring well-known genes. Binning, however, is inefficient and does not take the uncertainty of the measurements into account. Furthermore, p-values, fold-changes, and other outcomes are treated as equally important, and relevant genes may be overlooked with such an approach. Desirability functions are proposed as a way to integrate multiple selection criteria for ranking, selecting, and prioritising genes. These functions map any variable to a continuous 0-1 scale, where one is maximally desirable and zero is unacceptable. Multiple selection criteria are then combined to provide an overall desirability that is used to rank genes. In addition to p-values and fold-changes, further experimental results and information contained in databases can be easily included as criteria. The approach is demonstrated with a breast cancer microarray data set. The functions and an example data set can be found in the desiR package on CRAN (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/desiR/) and the development version is available on GitHub (https://github.com/stanlazic/desiR).
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.