ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Evaluating Cross-Platform Batch Correction Methods for Integrated Microarray and RNA-seq Data Analysis.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Integrated analysis of gene expression data across studies is important for understanding complex traits, but combining microarray and RNA-seq data remains challenging because of substantial platform-related technical differences. In this study, we evaluated ten commonly used batch-effect correction methods for cross-platform integration and classified them into three groups representing a spectrum from least to most data processing: unsupervised sample-wise methods, unsupervised gene-wise methods, and supervised methods. Unlike the first two groups, supervised methods use outcome information to guide correction. Performance was assessed for distribution alignment, clustering, outcome prediction, and differential expression (DE) analysis using three paired real microarray-RNA-seq datasets and simulation studies. Supervised methods achieved strong distribution alignment and clustering by biological group, but they introduced information leakage and inflated Type I error, making them unsuitable for unbiased discovery. Among unsupervised methods, sample-wise approaches were often conservative under balanced settings. They showed inflated Type I error under imbalanced settings. In contrast, gene-wise methods generally maintained appropriate Type I error control and achieved higher power, with limma showing the strongest DE performance. Meta-analysis that combines p-values also controlled Type I error well and provided competitive power. For outcome prediction, both sample-wise QN and gene-wise limma performed well, with limma providing the strongest overall performance and QN offering the practical advantage that new samples can be normalized to an existing reference distribution without refitting. Overall, limma is recommended as the best general-purpose method for cross-platform integration.
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.