SynthesisBMC bioinformatics2017
Optimal alpha reduces error rates in gene expression studies: a meta-analysis approach.
Synthesis in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic arsenic exposure induces malignant transformation of human HaCaT cells through both deterministic and stochastic changes in transcriptome expression.Toxicology and applied pharmacology · 2024Article
- Article
- Insights from two independent transcriptomic studies of the bovine corpus luteum during pregnancy.Journal of animal science · 2022Article
- The p value wars (again).European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
- Article
- The quest for an optimal alpha.PloS one · 2019Article
- Expression analysis of RNA sequencing data from human neural and glial cell lines depends on technical replication and normalization methods.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Applications of large-scale molecular profiling techniques to the study of the corpus luteum.Animal reproductionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscriptomic approaches (microarray and RNA-seq) have been a tremendous advance for molecular science in all disciplines, but they have made interpretation of hypothesis testing more difficult because of the large number of comparisons that are done within an experiment. The result has been a proliferation of techniques aimed at solving the multiple comparisons problem, techniques that have focused primarily on minimizing Type I error with little or no concern about concomitant increases in Type II errors. We have previously proposed a novel approach for setting statistical thresholds with applications for high throughput omics-data, optimal α, which minimizes the probability of making either error (i.e. Type I or II) and eliminates the need for post-hoc adjustments.
resultsA meta-analysis of 242 microarray studies extracted from the peer-reviewed literature found that current practices for setting statistical thresholds led to very high Type II error rates. Further, we demonstrate that applying the optimal α approach results in error rates as low or lower than error rates obtained when using (i) no post-hoc adjustment, (ii) a Bonferroni adjustment and (iii) a false discovery rate (FDR) adjustment which is widely used in transcriptome studies.
conclusionsWe conclude that optimal α can reduce error rates associated with transcripts in both microarray and RNA-seq experiments, but point out that improved statistical techniques alone cannot solve the problems associated with high throughput datasets - these approaches need to be coupled with improved experimental design that considers larger sample sizes and/or greater study replication.
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.