ArticleStatistics in medicine2018
Meta-analysis approaches to combine multiple gene set enrichment studies.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene set meta-analysis with Quantitative Set Analysis for Gene Expression (QuSAGE).PLoS computational biology · 2019Pooled it
- Dissecting Meta-Analysis in GWAS Era: Bayesian Framework for Gene/Subnetwork-Specific Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- The microbiome, genetics, and gastrointestinal neoplasms: the evolving field of molecular pathological epidemiology to analyze the tumor-immune-microbiome interaction.Human genetics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the field of gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), meta-analysis has been used to integrate information from multiple studies to present a reliable summarization of the expanding volume of individual biomedical research, as well as improve the power of detecting essential gene sets involved in complex human diseases. However, existing methods, Meta-Analysis for Pathway Enrichment (MAPE), may be subject to power loss because of (1) using gross summary statistics for combining end results from component studies and (2) using enrichment scores whose distributions depend on the set sizes. In this paper, we adapt meta-analysis approaches recently developed for genome-wide association studies, which are based on fixed effect and random effects (RE) models, to integrate multiple GSEA studies. We further develop a mixed strategy via adaptive testing for choosing RE versus FE models to achieve greater statistical efficiency as well as flexibility. In addition, a size-adjusted enrichment score based on a one-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic is proposed to formally account for varying set sizes when testing multiple gene sets. Our methods tend to have much better performance than the MAPE methods and can be applied to both discrete and continuous phenotypes. Specifically, the performance of the adaptive testing method seems to be the most stable in general situations.
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.