ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2016
Variance adaptive shrinkage (vash): flexible empirical Bayes estimation of variances.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of gene expression and DNA methylation patterns across tissues and species.Genome research · 2020Article
- Bootstrapping and Empirical Bayes Methods Improve Rhythm Detection in Sparsely Sampled Data.Journal of biological rhythms · 2018Article
- False discovery rates: a new deal.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationGenomic studies often involve estimation of variances of thousands of genes (or other genomic units) from just a few measurements on each. For example, variance estimation is an important step in gene expression analyses aimed at identifying differentially expressed genes. A common approach to this problem is to use an Empirical Bayes (EB) method that assumes the variances among genes follow an inverse-gamma distribution. This distributional assumption is relatively inflexible; for example, it may not capture 'outlying' genes whose variances are considerably bigger than usual. Here we describe a more flexible EB method, capable of capturing a much wider range of distributions. Indeed, the main assumption is that the distribution of the variances is unimodal (or, as an alternative, that the distribution of the precisions is unimodal). We argue that the unimodal assumption provides an attractive compromise between flexibility, computational tractability and statistical efficiency.
resultsWe show that this more flexible approach provides competitive performance with existing methods when the variances truly come from an inverse-gamma distribution, and can outperform them when the distribution of the variances is more complex. In analyses of several human gene expression datasets from the Genotype Tissues Expression consortium, we find that our more flexible model often fits the data appreciably better than the single inverse gamma distribution. At the same time we find that in these data this improved model fit leads to only small improvements in variance estimates and detection of differentially expressed genes. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our methods are implemented in an R package vashr available from http://github.com/mengyin/vashr CONTACT: mstephens@uchicago.eduSupplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.