Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26896791›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2017

Effects of imputation on correlation: implications for analysis of mass spectrometry data from multiple biological matrices.

Sandra L Taylor, L Renee Ruhaak, Karen Kelly, Robert H Weiss, Kyoungmi Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. To Impute or Not To Impute in Untargeted Metabolomics─That is the Compositional Question.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Sandra L TaylorDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California School of Medicine, CA, USA.
L Renee RuhaakDepartment of Chemistry, University of California, CA, USA.
Karen KellyDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center , Sacramento, California, USA.
Robert H WeissDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, CA, USA.
Kyoungmi KimDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California , California, USA.

Funding

Staff InvestigatorsP30CA093373 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI Gina M Dayton · 2002 to 2026
$84.9M
UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000002 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BERGLUND, LARS F · 2012 to 2015
$12.2M
TRANSLOCATION OF p66Shc: KINETICS, FUNCTION, APOPTOSISP01AG025532 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI KIM, KYOUNGMI · 2007 to 2017
$12.1M
Rodent Behavior CoreU54HD079125 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI ABBEDUTO, LEONARD J. · 2013 to 2019
$8.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000002NCI NIH HHS P30 CA093373NIA NIH HHS P01 AG025532NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD079125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With expanded access to, and decreased costs of, mass spectrometry, investigators are collecting and analyzing multiple biological matrices from the same subject such as serum, plasma, tissue and urine to enhance biomarker discoveries, understanding of disease processes and identification of therapeutic targets. Commonly, each biological matrix is analyzed separately, but multivariate methods such as MANOVAs that combine information from multiple biological matrices are potentially more powerful. However, mass spectrometric data typically contain large amounts of missing values, and imputation is often used to create complete data sets for analysis. The effects of imputation on multiple biological matrix analyses have not been studied. We investigated the effects of seven imputation methods (half minimum substitution, mean substitution, k-nearest neighbors, local least squares regression, Bayesian principal components analysis, singular value decomposition and random forest), on the within-subject correlation of compounds between biological matrices and its consequences on MANOVA results. Through analysis of three real omics data sets and simulation studies, we found the amount of missing data and imputation method to substantially change the between-matrix correlation structure. The magnitude of the correlations was generally reduced in imputed data sets, and this effect increased with the amount of missing data. Significant results from MANOVA testing also were substantially affected. In particular, the number of false positives increased with the level of missing data for all imputation methods. No one imputation method was universally the best, but the simple substitution methods (Half Minimum and Mean) consistently performed poorly.

Indexed as

Mass SpectrometryAlgorithmsBayes TheoremCluster AnalysisLeast-Squares Analysisimputationmass spectrometrymetabolomicsmissing datamultivariate analysiswithin-subject correlation

Identifiers

PMID26896791
PMCPMC5862252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.