ArticleBiometrics2018
Empirical null estimation using zero-inflated discrete mixture distributions and its application to protein domain data.
Article in Biometrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioinformatic RNA-Seq Functional Profiling of the Tumor Suppressor Gene OPCML in Ovarian Cancers: The Multifunctional, Pleiotropic Impacts of Having Three Ig Domains.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- C-ziptf: stable tensor factorization for zero-inflated multi-dimensional genomics data.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Individualized empirical null estimation for exact tests of healthcare quality.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Thresholding Gini variable importance with a single-trained random forest: An empirical Bayes approach.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Adaptive local false discovery rate procedures for highly spiky data and their application RNA sequencing data of yeast SET4 deletion mutants.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2021Article
- Oncodomains: A protein domain-centric framework for analyzing rare variants in tumor samples.PLoS computational biology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent mutation studies, analyses based on protein domain positions are gaining popularity over gene-centric approaches since the latter have limitations in considering the functional context that the position of the mutation provides. This presents a large-scale simultaneous inference problem, with hundreds of hypothesis tests to consider at the same time. This article aims to select significant mutation counts while controlling a given level of Type I error via False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedures. One main assumption is that the mutation counts follow a zero-inflated model in order to account for the true zeros in the count model and the excess zeros. The class of models considered is the Zero-inflated Generalized Poisson (ZIGP) distribution. Furthermore, we assumed that there exists a cut-off value such that smaller counts than this value are generated from the null distribution. We present several data-dependent methods to determine the cut-off value. We also consider a two-stage procedure based on screening process so that the number of mutations exceeding a certain value should be considered as significant mutations. Simulated and protein domain data sets are used to illustrate this procedure in estimation of the empirical null using a mixture of discrete distributions. Overall, while maintaining control of the FDR, the proposed two-stage testing procedure has superior empirical power.
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.