Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29881462›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2018

Gene set analysis methods: a systematic comparison.

Ravi Mathur, Daniel Rotroff, Jun Ma, Ali Shojaie, Alison Motsinger-Reif

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ravi Mathur1Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA.
Daniel Rotroff1Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA.
Jun Ma1Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA.
Ali Shojaie3Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.
Alison Motsinger-Reif1Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1346-2493

Funding

Statistical Methods for Cancer Clinical TrialsP01CA142538 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI TSIATIS, ANASTASIOS A · 2010 to 2019
$21.3M
Genetic Etiology of Cancer Drug ResponseR01CA161608 · NCI · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI WILTSHIRE, TIM, WRIGHT, FRED A. · 2012 to 2021
$4.0M
An Exome-Focused Approach to Pharmacogenetic Analysis of the ACCORD TrialR01HL110380 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, WAGNER, MICHAEL JAY · 2012 to 2015
$2.4M
Machine Learning Tools for Discovery and Analysis of Active Metabolic PathwaysR01GM114029 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHOJAIE, ALI · 2016 to 2020
$1.7M
Statistical Methods for Network-Based Integrative Analysis of CVD Epigenetic DataK01HL124050 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHOJAIE, ALI · 2016 to 2020
$693k
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA142538NCI NIH HHS R01 CA161608NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL124050NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL110380NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM114029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGene set analysis is a valuable tool to summarize high-dimensional gene expression data in terms of biologically relevant sets. This is an active area of research and numerous gene set analysis methods have been developed. Despite this popularity, systematic comparative studies have been limited in scope.

methodsIn this study we present a semi-synthetic simulation study using real datasets in order to test and compare commonly used methods.

resultsA software pipeline, Flexible Algorithm for Novel Gene set Simulation (FANGS) develops simulated data based on a prostate cancer dataset where the KRAS and TGF-β pathways were differentially expressed. The FANGS software is compatible with other datasets and pathways. Comparisons of gene set analysis methods are presented for Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA), Significance Analysis of Function and Expression (SAFE), sigPathway, and Correlation Adjusted Mean RAnk (CAMERA) methods. All gene set analysis methods are tested using gene sets from the MSigDB knowledge base. The false positive rate and power are estimated and presented for comparison. Recommendations are made for the utility of the default settings of methods and each method's sensitivity towards various effect sizes.

conclusionsThe results of this study provide empirical guidance to users of gene set analysis methods. The FANGS software is available for researchers for continued methods comparisons.

Indexed as

Gene set analysisMethods comparisonPathway analysis

Identifiers

PMID29881462
PMCPMC5984476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.