Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30572829›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2018

Power in pairs: assessing the statistical value of paired samples in tests for differential expression.

John R Stevens, Jennifer S Herrick, Roger K Wolff, Martha L Slattery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Hampered CD8 + ILT2 + T cell activation by HLA-G suggests a new immune checkpoint in gastric adenocarcinoma.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Article
  7. A newFrontiers in toxicology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

John R StevensDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA. john.r.stevens@usu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2908-7918
Jennifer S HerrickDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Roger K WolffDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Martha L SlatteryDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

DIET, ACTIVITY &REPRODUCTION--RISKS FOR RECTAL CANCERR01CA048998 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI SLATTERY, MARTHA L · 1991 to 2012
$7.9M
DIET, ACTIVITY &REPRODUCTION--RISKS FOR RECTAL CANCERU01CA048998 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI SLATTERY, MARTHA OR MARTY L · 1997 to 1999
–
National Cancer Institute CA16383National Cancer Institute CA48998
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen genomics researchers design a high-throughput study to test for differential expression, some biological systems and research questions provide opportunities to use paired samples from subjects, and researchers can plan for a certain proportion of subjects to have paired samples. We consider the effect of this paired samples proportion on the statistical power of the study, using characteristics of both count (RNA-Seq) and continuous (microarray) expression data from a colorectal cancer study.

resultsWe demonstrate that a higher proportion of subjects with paired samples yields higher statistical power, for various total numbers of samples, and for various strengths of subject-level confounding factors. In the design scenarios considered, the statistical power in a fully-paired design is substantially (and in many cases several times) greater than in an unpaired design.

conclusionsFor the many biological systems and research questions where paired samples are feasible and relevant, substantial statistical power gains can be achieved at the study design stage when genomics researchers plan on using paired samples from the largest possible proportion of subjects. Any cost savings in a study design with unpaired samples are likely accompanied by underpowered and possibly biased results.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticTranscriptomeBiomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansModels, StatisticalOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisResearch DesignSample SizeSequence Analysis, RNABiomarkers, TumorMicroarraymicroRNARNA-SeqStatistical powerStudy design

Identifiers

PMID30572829
PMCPMC6302489

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.