ArticleScientific reports2020
Non-random sampling leads to biased estimates of transcriptome association.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Integration of independent data resources across -omics platforms offers transformative opportunity for novel clinical and biological discoveries. However, application of emerging analytic methods in the context of selection bias represents a noteworthy and pervasive challenge. We hypothesize that combining differentially selected samples for integrated transcriptome analysis will lead to bias in the estimated association between predicted expression and the trait. Our results are based on in silico investigations and a case example focused on body mass index across four well-described cohorts apparently derived from markedly different populations. Our findings suggest that integrative analysis can lead to substantial relative bias in the estimate of association between predicted expression and the trait. The average estimate of association ranged from 51.3% less than to 96.7% greater than the true value for the biased sampling scenarios considered, while the average error was - 2.7% for the unbiased scenario. The corresponding 95% confidence interval coverage rate ranged from 46.4% to 69.5% under biased sampling, and was equal to 75% for the unbiased scenario. Inverse probability weighting with observed and estimated weights is applied as one corrective measure and appears to reduce the bias and improve coverage. These results highlight a critical need to address selection bias in integrative analysis and to use caution in interpreting findings in the presence of different sampling mechanisms between groups.
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.