Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37688561›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2023

A general framework for powerful confounder adjustment in omics association studies.

Asmita Roy, Jun Chen, Xianyang Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Asmita Royepartment of Statistics, Texas A&M University, 155 Ireland Street, College Station, TX 77840, United States.
Jun ChenDivision of Computational Biology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1273-5624
Xianyang Zhangepartment of Statistics, Texas A&M University, 155 Ireland Street, College Station, TX 77840, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2512-1816

Funding

Methods for microbiome compositional dataR01GM144351 · NIGMS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Jun Chen, Xianyang Zhang · 2022 to 2026
$1.6M
Methods for Analysis of Genomic Data with Auxiliary InformationR21HG011662 · NHGRI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI CHEN, JUN, ZHANG, XIANYANG · 2021 to 2022
$434k
NHGRI NIH HHS R21 HG011662NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM144351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationGenomic data are subject to various sources of confounding, such as demographic variables, biological heterogeneity, and batch effects. To identify genomic features associated with a variable of interest in the presence of confounders, the traditional approach involves fitting a confounder-adjusted regression model to each genomic feature, followed by multiplicity correction.

resultsThis study shows that the traditional approach is suboptimal and proposes a new two-dimensional false discovery rate control framework (2DFDR+) that provides significant power improvement over the conventional method and applies to a wide range of settings. 2DFDR+ uses marginal independence test statistics as auxiliary information to filter out less promising features, and FDR control is performed based on conditional independence test statistics in the remaining features. 2DFDR+ provides (asymptotically) valid inference from samples in settings where the conditional distribution of the genomic variables given the covariate of interest and the confounders is arbitrary and completely unknown. Promising finite sample performance is demonstrated via extensive simulations and real data applications. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: R codes and vignettes are available at https://github.com/asmita112358/tdfdr.np.

Indexed as

GenomeGenomics

Identifiers

PMID37688561
PMCPMC10539716

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.