SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2022
Robust meta-analysis for large-scale genomic experiments based on an empirical approach.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent high-throughput technologies have opened avenues for simultaneous analyses of thousands of genes. With the availability of a multitude of public databases, one can easily access multiple genomic study results where each study comprises of significance testing results of thousands of genes. Researchers currently tend to combine this genomic information from these multiple studies in the form of a meta-analysis. As the number of genes involved is very large, the classical meta-analysis approaches need to be updated to acknowledge this large-scale aspect of the data.
methodsIn this article, we discuss how application of standard theoretical null distributional assumptions of the classical meta-analysis methods, such as Fisher's p-value combination and Stouffer's Z, can lead to incorrect significant testing results, and we propose a robust meta-analysis method that empirically modifies the individual test statistics and p-values before combining them.
resultsOur proposed meta-analysis method performs best in significance testing among several meta-analysis approaches, especially in presence of hidden confounders, as shown through a wide variety of simulation studies and real genomic data analysis.
conclusionThe proposed meta-analysis method produces superior meta-analysis results compared to the standard p-value combination approaches for large-scale simultaneous testing in genomic experiments. This is particularly useful in studies with large number of genes where the standard meta-analysis approaches can result in gross false discoveries due to the presence of unobserved confounding variables.
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.