Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39254597›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024

Feature selection by replicate reproducibility and non-redundancy.

Tümay Capraz, Wolfgang Huber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Tümay CaprazGenome Biology Unit, EMBL, Heidelberg, 69117, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2547-067X
Wolfgang HuberGenome Biology Unit, EMBL, Heidelberg, 69117, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0474-2218

Funding

European Research Council 810296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationA fundamental step in many analyses of high-dimensional data is dimension reduction. Two basic approaches are introduction of new synthetic coordinates and selection of extant features. Advantages of the latter include interpretability, simplicity, transferability, and modularity. A common criterion for unsupervized feature selection is variance or dynamic range. However, in practice, it can occur that high-variance features are noisy, that important features have low variance, or that variances are simply not comparable across features because they are measured in unrelated numeric scales or physical units. Moreover, users may want to include measures of signal-to-noise ratio and non-redundancy into feature selection.

resultsHere, we introduce the RNR algorithm, which selects features based on (i) the reproducibility of their signal across replicates and (ii) their non-redundancy, measured by linear dependence. It takes as input a typically large set of features measured on a collection of objects with two or more replicates per object. It returns an ordered list of features, i1,i2,…,ik, where feature i1 is the one with the highest reproducibility across replicates, i2 that with the highest reproducibility across replicates after projecting out the dimension spanned by i1, and so on. Applications to microscopy-based imaging of cells and proteomics highlight benefits of the approach. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The RNR method is available via Bioconductor (Huber W, Carey VJ, Gentleman R et al. (Orchestrating high-throughput genomic analysis with bioconductor. Nat Methods 2015;12:115-21.) in the R package FeatSeekR. Its source code is also available at https://github.com/tcapraz/FeatSeekR under the GPL-3 open source license.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyHumansReproducibility of ResultsSignal-To-Noise Ratio

Identifiers

PMID39254597
PMCPMC11410923

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.