ArticleBiometrics2018
A regression framework for assessing covariate effects on the reproducibility of high-throughput experiments.
Article in Biometrics, 2018. 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.
- RNA sequestration in P-bodies sustains myeloid leukaemia.Nature cell biology · 2024Article
- Assessing reproducibility of high-throughput experiments in the case of missing data.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Reproducibility of mass spectrometry based metabolomics data.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
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
The outcome of high-throughput biological experiments is affected by many operational factors in the experimental and data-analytical procedures. Understanding how these factors affect the reproducibility of the outcome is critical for establishing workflows that produce replicable discoveries. In this article, we propose a regression framework, based on a novel cumulative link model, to assess the covariate effects of operational factors on the reproducibility of findings from high-throughput experiments. In contrast to existing graphical approaches, our method allows one to succinctly characterize the simultaneous and independent effects of covariates on reproducibility and to compare reproducibility while controlling for potential confounding variables. We also establish a connection between our model and certain Archimedean copula models. This connection not only offers our regression framework an interpretation in copula models, but also provides guidance on choosing the functional forms of the regression. Furthermore, it also opens a new way to interpret and utilize these copulas in the context of reproducibility. Using simulations, we show that our method produces calibrated type I error and is more powerful in detecting difference in reproducibility than existing measures of agreement. We illustrate the usefulness of our method using a ChIP-seq study and a microarray study.
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.