Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35769140›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

A combined test for feature selection on sparse metaproteomics data-an alternative to missing value imputation.

Sandra Plancade, Magali Berland, Mélisande Blein-Nicolas, Olivier Langella, Ariane Bassignani, Catherine Juste

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Sandra Plancade *UR875 MIAT, Université fédérale de Toulouse, INRAE, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Magali Berland *Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, MGP, Jouy en Josas, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6762-5350
Mélisande Blein-NicolasUniversité Paris-Saclay, CNRS, INRAE, AgroParisTech, GQE-Le Moulon, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
Olivier LangellaUniversité Paris-Saclay, CNRS, INRAE, AgroParisTech, GQE-Le Moulon, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3039-6718
Ariane BassignaniUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, MGP, Jouy en Josas, France.
Catherine JusteMicalis Institute, Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParis Tech, Jouy-en-Josas, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ProteomicsData AccuracyResearch DesignCombined testFeature selectionMetaproteomicsMissing value imputation

Identifiers

PMID35769140
PMCPMC9235818

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.