Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32795265›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020

Comparison of methods for the detection of outliers and associated biomarkers in mislabeled omics data.

Hongwei Sun, Yuehua Cui, Hui Wang, Haixia Liu, Tong Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. EnsMOD: A Software Program for Omics Sample Outlier Detection.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An Efficient Algorithm for the Detection of Outliers in Mislabeled Omics Data.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021
    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.

Hongwei SunDepartment of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan City, 030001, Shanxi, China.
Yuehua CuiDepartment of Statistics and Probability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Hui WangDepartment of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan City, 030001, Shanxi, China.
Haixia LiuDepartment of Health Statistics, School of Public Health and Management, Binzhou Medical University, City, Yantai, 264003, Shandong, China.
Tong WangDepartment of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan City, 030001, Shanxi, China. tongwang@sxmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9403-7167

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81473073National Natural Science Foundation of China 81872715Young Scientists Fund 81502891
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have reported that labeling errors are not uncommon in omics data. Potential outliers may severely undermine the correct classification of patients and the identification of reliable biomarkers for a particular disease. Three methods have been proposed to address the problem: sparse label-noise-robust logistic regression (Rlogreg), robust elastic net based on the least trimmed square (enetLTS), and Ensemble. Ensemble is an ensembled classification based on distinct feature selection and modeling strategies. The accuracy of biomarker selection and outlier detection of these methods needs to be evaluated and compared so that the appropriate method can be chosen.

resultsThe accuracy of variable selection, outlier identification, and prediction of three methods (Ensemble, enetLTS, Rlogreg) were compared for simulated and an RNA-seq dataset. On simulated datasets, Ensemble had the highest variable selection accuracy, as measured by a comprehensive index, and lowest false discovery rate among the three methods. When the sample size was large and the proportion of outliers was ≤5%, the positive selection rate of Ensemble was similar to that of enetLTS. However, when the proportion of outliers was 10% or 15%, Ensemble missed some variables that affected the response variables. Overall, enetLTS had the best outlier detection accuracy with false positive rates < 0.05 and high sensitivity, and enetLTS still performed well when the proportion of outliers was relatively large. With 1% or 2% outliers, Ensemble showed high outlier detection accuracy, but with higher proportions of outliers Ensemble missed many mislabeled samples. Rlogreg and Ensemble were less accurate in identifying outliers than enetLTS. The prediction accuracy of enetLTS was better than that of Rlogreg. Running Ensemble on a subset of data after removing the outliers identified by enetLTS improved the variable selection accuracy of Ensemble.

conclusionsWhen the proportion of outliers is ≤5%, Ensemble can be used for variable selection. When the proportion of outliers is > 5%, Ensemble can be used for variable selection on a subset after removing outliers identified by enetLTS. For outlier identification, enetLTS is the recommended method. In practice, the proportion of outliers can be estimated according to the inaccuracy of the diagnostic methods used.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremBiomarkersComputational BiologyDatabases, FactualDiscriminant AnalysisFemaleHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisLogistic ModelsSample SizeTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsBiomarkersenetLTSEnsembleFeature selectionMislabeledRlogregRobust

Identifiers

PMID32795265
PMCPMC7646480

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.