Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27037601›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2016

PCAN: Probabilistic correlation analysis of two non-normal data sets.

Roger S Zoh, Bani Mallick, Ivan Ivanov, Veera Baladandayuthapani, Ganiraju Manyam, Robert S Chapkin, Johanna W Lampe, Raymond J Carroll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

8 authors.

Roger S ZohDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, U.S.A.
Bani MallickDepartment of Statistics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, U.S.A.
Ivan IvanovDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, Texas, U.S.A.
Veera BaladandayuthapaniThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Ganiraju ManyamThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Robert S ChapkinProgram in Integrative Nutrition and Complex Diseases, Texas A&M University, Texas, U.S.A.
Johanna W LampeDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.
Raymond J CarrollDepartment of Statistics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, U.S.A.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS--SPORE IN LUNG CANCERP50CA070907 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI GIBBONS, DON LYNN · 1996 to 2024
$57.4M
Nutrition, Biostatistics and BioinformaticsR25CA090301 · NCI · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM · PI CARROLL, RAYMOND J. · 2001 to 2015
$7.6M
TARGETED GENOMICS FACILITY COREP30ES023512 · NIEHS · TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH · PI DEUTZ, NICOLAAS E · 2014 to 2017
$3.3M
Gut Microbiota and colonic gene expression: A ligran trial in humansU01CA162077 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI CHAPKIN, ROBERT STEPHEN, HULLAR, MEREDITH · 2011 to 2015
$3.2M
Measurement Error, Nutrition, Physical Activity and CancerU01CA057030 · NCI · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY · PI CARROLL, RAYMOND J. · 2015 to 2019
$2.8M
Integrative methods for high-dimensional genomics dataR01CA160736 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BALADANDAYUTHAPANI, VEERABHADRAN · 2011 to 2014
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P50 CA070907NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160736NCI NIH HHS R25 CA090301NCI NIH HHS U01 CA057030NCI NIH HHS U01 CA162077NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES023512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most cancer research now involves one or more assays profiling various biological molecules, e.g., messenger RNA and micro RNA, in samples collected on the same individuals. The main interest with these genomic data sets lies in the identification of a subset of features that are active in explaining the dependence between platforms. To quantify the strength of the dependency between two variables, correlation is often preferred. However, expression data obtained from next-generation sequencing platforms are integer with very low counts for some important features. In this case, the sample Pearson correlation is not a valid estimate of the true correlation matrix, because the sample correlation estimate between two features/variables with low counts will often be close to zero, even when the natural parameters of the Poisson distribution are, in actuality, highly correlated. We propose a model-based approach to correlation estimation between two non-normal data sets, via a method we call Probabilistic Correlations ANalysis, or PCAN. PCAN takes into consideration the distributional assumption about both data sets and suggests that correlations estimated at the model natural parameter level are more appropriate than correlations estimated directly on the observed data. We demonstrate through a simulation study that PCAN outperforms other standard approaches in estimating the true correlation between the natural parameters. We then apply PCAN to the joint analysis of a microRNA (miRNA) and a messenger RNA (mRNA) expression data set from a squamous cell lung cancer study, finding a large number of negative correlation pairs when compared to the standard approaches.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPoisson DistributionCarcinoma, Squamous CellHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLung NeoplasmsMicroRNAsRNA, MessengerMicroRNAsRNA, MessengerCanonical correlation analysisCorrelationGeneralized linear modelsPoisson regressionRNA-sequencing

Identifiers

PMID27037601
PMCPMC5045754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.