ArticleGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2017
The Ability of Different Imputation Methods to Preserve the Significant Genes and Pathways in Cancer.
Article in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Removing the association of random gene sets and survival time in cancers with positive random bias using fixed-point gene set.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A comprehensive survey on computational learning methods for analysis of gene expression data.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Review
- Genomic data imputation with variational auto-encoders.GigaScience · 2020Article
- Significant random signatures reveals new biomarker for breast cancer.BMC medical genomics · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deciphering important genes and pathways from incomplete gene expression data could facilitate a better understanding of cancer. Different imputation methods can be applied to estimate the missing values. In our study, we evaluated various imputation methods for their performance in preserving significant genes and pathways. In the first step, 5% genes are considered in random for two types of ignorable and non-ignorable missingness mechanisms with various missing rates. Next, 10 well-known imputation methods were applied to the complete datasets. The significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) method was applied to detect the significant genes in rectal and lung cancers to showcase the utility of imputation approaches in preserving significant genes. To determine the impact of different imputation methods on the identification of important genes, the chi-squared test was used to compare the proportions of overlaps between significant genes detected from original data and those detected from the imputed datasets. Additionally, the significant genes are tested for their enrichment in important pathways, using the ConsensusPathDB. Our results showed that almost all the significant genes and pathways of the original dataset can be detected in all imputed datasets, indicating that there is no significant difference in the performance of various imputation methods tested. The source code and selected datasets are available on http://profiles.bs.ipm.ir/softwares/imputation_methods/.
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.