ArticlePeerJ2022
A combined test for feature selection on sparse metaproteomics data-an alternative to missing value imputation.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive evaluation of statistical approaches for differential metaproteomics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The microbiologist's guide to metaproteomics.iMeta · 2025Review
- Evaluation of imputation and imputation-free strategies for differential abundance analysis in metaproteomics data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Metaproteomics reveals diet-induced changes in gut microbiome function according to Crohn's disease location.Microbiome · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the difficulties encountered in the statistical analysis of metaproteomics data is the high proportion of missing values, which are usually treated by imputation. Nevertheless, imputation methods are based on restrictive assumptions regarding missingness mechanisms, namely "at random" or "not at random". To circumvent these limitations in the context of feature selection in a multi-class comparison, we propose a univariate selection method that combines a test of association between missingness and classes, and a test for difference of observed intensities between classes. This approach implicitly handles both missingness mechanisms. We performed a quantitative and qualitative comparison of our procedure with imputation-based feature selection methods on two experimental data sets, as well as simulated data with various scenarios regarding the missingness mechanisms and the nature of the difference of expression (differential intensity or differential presence). Whereas we observed similar performances in terms of prediction on the experimental data set, the feature ranking and selection from various imputation-based methods were strongly divergent. We showed that the combined test reaches a compromise by correlating reasonably with other methods, and remains efficient in all simulated scenarios unlike imputation-based feature selection methods.
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.