Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36833313›Full record

ArticleGenes2023

Assessing Outlier Probabilities in Transcriptomics Data When Evaluating a Classifier.

Magdalena Kircher, Josefin Säurich, Michael Selle, Klaus Jung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Magdalena KircherInstitute for Animal Breeding and Genetics, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, D-30559 Hannover, Germany.
Josefin SäurichInstitute for Animal Breeding and Genetics, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, D-30559 Hannover, Germany.
Michael SelleInstitute for Animal Breeding and Genetics, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, D-30559 Hannover, Germany.
Klaus JungInstitute for Animal Breeding and Genetics, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, D-30559 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9955-748X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outliers in the training or test set used to fit and evaluate a classifier on transcriptomics data can considerably change the estimated performance of the model. Hence, an either too weak or a too optimistic accuracy is then reported and the estimated model performance cannot be reproduced on independent data. It is then also doubtful whether a classifier qualifies for clinical usage. We estimate classifier performances in simulated gene expression data with artificial outliers and in two real-world datasets. As a new approach, we use two outlier detection methods within a bootstrap procedure to estimate the outlier probability for each sample and evaluate classifiers before and after outlier removal by means of cross-validation. We found that the removal of outliers changed the classification performance notably. For the most part, removing outliers improved the classification results. Taking into account the fact that there are various, sometimes unclear reasons for a sample to be an outlier, we strongly advocate to always report the performance of a transcriptomics classifier with and without outliers in training and test data. This provides a more diverse picture of a classifier's performance and prevents reporting models that later turn out to be not applicable for clinical diagnoses.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingTranscriptomeProbabilityResearch Designbagplotbootstrapoutlier detectionoutlier probabilityrobust learningtranscriptomics data

Identifiers

PMID36833313
PMCPMC9956321

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.