Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26644980›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2015

Ranking, selecting, and prioritising genes with desirability functions.

Stanley E Lazic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

1 author.

Stanley E LazicIn Silico Lead Discovery, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research , Basel , Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Data fusionDesirabilityGene expressionMicroarrayRRank aggregation

Identifiers

PMID26644980
PMCPMC4671156

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.