Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30275937›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2018

A Review of Matched-pairs Feature Selection Methods for Gene Expression Data Analysis.

Sen Liang, Anjun Ma, Sen Yang, Yan Wang, Qin Ma

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05911412 (Development of the Neuroimaging Biomarker-based Prediction Model of Anxiety-related Disorders and Novel Treatment Strategies), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05911412 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Development of the Neuroimaging Biomarker-based Prediction Model of Anxiety-related Disorders and Novel Treatment Strategies: Effect of Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy Using Neuroscience on the Brain

TypeinterventionalSponsorCHA UniversityRan2023 to 2025Enrolled64ConditionsAnxiety DepressionArmsMindfulness-based cognitive therapy using neuroscience (NMBCT)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Identification of mClinical epigenetics · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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.

Sen LiangKey Laboratory of Symbol Computation and Knowledge Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Computer Science and Technology, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China.
Anjun MaBioinformatics and Mathematical Biosciences Lab, Department of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.
Sen YangKey Laboratory of Symbol Computation and Knowledge Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Computer Science and Technology, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China.
Yan WangKey Laboratory of Symbol Computation and Knowledge Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Computer Science and Technology, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China.
Qin MaBioinformatics and Mathematical Biosciences Lab, Department of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rapid accumulation of gene expression data from various technologies, e.g., microarray, RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq), and single-cell RNA-seq, it is necessary to carry out dimensional reduction and feature (signature genes) selection in support of making sense out of such high dimensional data. These computational methods significantly facilitate further data analysis and interpretation, such as gene function enrichment analysis, cancer biomarker detection, and drug targeting identification in precision medicine. Although numerous methods have been developed for feature selection in bioinformatics, it is still a challenge to choose the appropriate methods for a specific problem and seek for the most reasonable ranking features. Meanwhile, the paired gene expression data under matched case-control design (MCCD) is becoming increasingly popular, which has often been used in multi-omics integration studies and may increase feature selection efficiency by offsetting similar distributions of confounding features. The appropriate feature selection methods specifically designed for the paired data, which is named as matched-pairs feature selection (MPFS), however, have not been maturely developed in parallel. In this review, we compare the performance of 10 feature-selection methods (eight MPFS methods and two traditional unpaired methods) on two real datasets by applied three classification methods, and analyze the algorithm complexity of these methods through the running of their programs. This review aims to induce and comprehensively present the MPFS in such a way that readers can easily understand its characteristics and get a clue in selecting the appropriate methods for their analyses.

Indexed as

Gene expressionMatched case-control designMatched-pairs feature selectionPaired data

Identifiers

PMID30275937
PMCPMC6158772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.