ArticleStatistica Sinica2021
UNIFYING AND GENERALIZING METHODS FOR REMOVING UNWANTED VARIATION BASED ON NEGATIVE CONTROLS.
Article in Statistica Sinica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal bioinformatic analyses of genome-scale expression beyond gene-centric differential expression.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Removal of unwanted variation in pseudobulk analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing data and the leveraging of pseudoreplicates.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Hierarchical confounder discovery in the experiment-machine learning cycle.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Data-based RNA-seq simulations by binomial thinning.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Empirical Bayes shrinkage and false discovery rate estimation, allowing for unwanted variation.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Adjusting for Principal Components of Molecular Phenotypes Induces Replicating False Positives.Genetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Unwanted variation, including hidden confounding, is a well-known problem in many fields, but particularly in large-scale gene expression studies. Recent proposals to use control genes, genes assumed to be unassociated with the covariates of interest, have led to new methods to deal with this problem. Several versions of these removing unwanted variation (RUV) methods have been proposed, including RUV1, RUV2, RUV4, RUVinv, RUVrinv, and RUVfun. Here, we introduce a general framework, RUV*, that both unites and generalizes these approaches. This unifying framework helps clarify the connections between existing methods. In particular, we provide conditions under which RUV2 and RUV4 are equivalent. The RUV* framework preserves an advantage of the RUV approaches, namely, their modularity, which facilitates the development of novel methods based on existing matrix imputation algorithms. We illustrate this by implementing RUVB, a version of RUV* based on Bayesian factor analysis. In realistic simulations based on real data, we found RUVB to be competitive with existing methods in terms of both power and calibration. However, providing a consistently reliable calibration among the data sets remains challenging.
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.