ArticleGigaScience2019
A probabilistic multi-omics data matching method for detecting sample errors in integrative analysis.
Article in GigaScience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A pipeline for sample tagging of whole genome bisulfite sequencing data using genotypes of whole genome sequencing.BMC genomics · 2023Article
- A community effort to identify and correct mislabeled samples in proteogenomic studies.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- A probabilistic multi-omics data matching method for detecting sample errors in integrative analysis.GigaScience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundData errors, including sample swapping and mis-labeling, are inevitable in the process of large-scale omics data generation. Data errors need to be identified and corrected before integrative data analyses where different types of data are merged on the basis of the annotated labels. Data with labeling errors dampen true biological signals. More importantly, data analysis with sample errors could lead to wrong scientific conclusions. We developed a robust probabilistic multi-omics data matching procedure, proMODMatcher, to curate data and identify and correct data annotation and errors in large databases.
resultsApplication to simulated datasets suggests that proMODMatcher achieved robust statistical power even when the number of cis-associations was small and/or the number of samples was large. Application of our proMODMatcher to multi-omics datasets in The Cancer Genome Atlas and International Cancer Genome Consortium identified sample errors in multiple cancer datasets. Our procedure was not only able to identify sample-labeling errors but also to unambiguously identify the source of the errors. Our results demonstrate that these errors should be identified and corrected before integrative analysis.
conclusionsOur results indicate that sample-labeling errors were common in large multi-omics datasets. These errors should be corrected before integrative analysis.
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.