Amelioration for an ignored pitfall in reference gene selection by considering the mean expression and standard deviation of target genes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Esfandiarpour G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9249883 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Humans expect downwards moving objects to accelerate and upwards moving objects to decelerate. These results have been interpreted as humans maintaining an internal model of gravity. We have previously suggested an interpretation of these results within a Bayesian framework of perception: earth gravity could be represented as a Strong Prior that overrules noisy sensory information (Likelihood) and therefore attracts the final percept (Posterior) very strongly. Based on this framework, we use published data from a timing task involving gravitational motion to determine the mean and the standard deviation of the Strong Earth Gravity Prior. To get its mean, we refine a model of mean timing errors we proposed in a previous paper (Jörges & López-Moliner, 2019), while expanding the range of conditions under which it yields adequate predictions of performance. This underscores our previous conclusion that the gravity prior is likely to be very close to 9.81 m/s2. To obtain the standard deviation, we identify different sources of sensory and motor variability reflected in timing errors. We then model timing responses based on quantitative assumptions about these sensory and motor errors for a range of standard deviations of the earth gravity prior, and find that a standard deviation of around 2 m/s2 makes for the best fit. This value is likely to represent an upper bound, as there are strong theoretical reasons along with supporting empirical evidence for the standard deviation of the earth gravity being lower than this value.
| S-EPMC7446919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Researchers increasingly use meta-analysis to synthesize the results of several studies in order to estimate a common effect. When the outcome variable is continuous, standard meta-analytic approaches assume that the primary studies report the sample mean and standard deviation of the outcome. However, when the outcome is skewed, authors sometimes summarize the data by reporting the sample median and one or both of (i) the minimum and maximum values and (ii) the first and third quartiles, but do not report the mean or standard deviation. To include these studies in meta-analysis, several methods have been developed to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation from the reported summary data. A major limitation of these widely used methods is that they assume that the outcome distribution is normal, which is unlikely to be tenable for studies reporting medians. We propose two novel approaches to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation when data are suspected to be non-normal. Our simulation results and empirical assessments show that the proposed methods often perform better than the existing methods when applied to non-normal data.
| S-EPMC7390706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When conducting a meta-analysis of a continuous outcome, estimated means and standard deviations from the selected studies are required in order to obtain an overall estimate of the mean effect and its confidence interval. If these quantities are not directly reported in the publications, they must be estimated from other reported summary statistics, such as the median, the minimum, the maximum, and quartiles.We propose a simulation-based estimation approach using the Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) technique for estimating mean and standard deviation based on various sets of summary statistics found in published studies. We conduct a simulation study to compare the proposed ABC method with the existing methods of Hozo et al. (2005), Bland (2015), and Wan et al. (2014).In the estimation of the standard deviation, our ABC method performs better than the other methods when data are generated from skewed or heavy-tailed distributions. The corresponding average relative error (ARE) approaches zero as sample size increases. In data generated from the normal distribution, our ABC performs well. However, the Wan et al. method is best for estimating standard deviation under normal distribution. In the estimation of the mean, our ABC method is best regardless of assumed distribution.ABC is a flexible method for estimating the study-specific mean and standard deviation for meta-analysis, especially with underlying skewed or heavy-tailed distributions. The ABC method can be applied using other reported summary statistics such as the posterior mean and 95 % credible interval when Bayesian analysis has been employed.
| S-EPMC4542106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Rigorous, informative meta-analyses rely on availability of appropriate summary statistics or individual participant data. For continuous outcomes, especially those with naturally skewed distributions, summary information on the mean or variability often goes unreported. While full reporting of original trial data is the ideal, we sought to identify methods for handling unreported mean or variability summary statistics in meta-analysis. METHODS:We undertook two systematic literature reviews to identify methodological approaches used to deal with missing mean or variability summary statistics. Five electronic databases were searched, in addition to the Cochrane Colloquium abstract books and the Cochrane Statistics Methods Group mailing list archive. We also conducted cited reference searching and emailed topic experts to identify recent methodological developments. Details recorded included the description of the method, the information required to implement the method, any underlying assumptions and whether the method could be readily applied in standard statistical software. We provided a summary description of the methods identified, illustrating selected methods in example meta-analysis scenarios. RESULTS:For missing standard deviations (SDs), following screening of 503 articles, fifteen methods were identified in addition to those reported in a previous review. These included Bayesian hierarchical modelling at the meta-analysis level; summary statistic level imputation based on observed SD values from other trials in the meta-analysis; a practical approximation based on the range; and algebraic estimation of the SD based on other summary statistics. Following screening of 1124 articles for methods estimating the mean, one approximate Bayesian computation approach and three papers based on alternative summary statistics were identified. Illustrative meta-analyses showed that when replacing a missing SD the approximation using the range minimised loss of precision and generally performed better than omitting trials. When estimating missing means, a formula using the median, lower quartile and upper quartile performed best in preserving the precision of the meta-analysis findings, although in some scenarios, omitting trials gave superior results. CONCLUSIONS:Methods based on summary statistics (minimum, maximum, lower quartile, upper quartile, median) reported in the literature facilitate more comprehensive inclusion of randomised controlled trials with missing mean or variability summary statistics within meta-analyses.
| S-EPMC5842611 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials.MethodsIn this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.'s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials.ResultsWe demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications.ConclusionsIn this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations.
| S-EPMC4383202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In meta-analysis based on continuous outcome, estimated means and corresponding standard deviations from the selected studies are key inputs to obtain a pooled estimate of the mean and its confidence interval. We often encounter the situation that these quantities are not directly reported in the literatures. Instead, other summary statistics are reported such as median, minimum, maximum, quartiles, and study sample size. Based on available summary statistics, we need to estimate estimates of mean and standard deviation for meta-analysis. We developed an R Shiny code based on approximate Bayesian computation (ABC), ABCMETA, to deal with this situation. In this article, we present an interactive and user-friendly R Shiny application for implementing the proposed method (named ABCMETAapp). In ABCMETAapp, users can choose an underlying outcome distribution other than the normal distribution when the distribution of the outcome variable is skewed or heavy tailed. We show how to run ABCMETAapp with examples. ABCMETAapp provides an R Shiny implementation. This method is more flexible than the existing analytical methods since estimation can be based on five different distributions (Normal, Lognormal, Exponential, Weibull, and Beta) for the outcome variable.
| S-EPMC8596912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To tackle the challenges in genomic data analysis caused by their tens of thousands of dimensions while having a small number of examples and unbalanced examples between classes, the technique of unsupervised feature selection based on standard deviation and cosine similarity is proposed in this paper. We refer to this idea as SCFS (Standard deviation and Cosine similarity based Feature Selection). It defines the discernibility and independence of a feature to value its distinguishable capability between classes and its redundancy to other features, respectively. A 2-dimensional space is constructed using discernibility as x-axis and independence as y-axis to represent all features where the upper right corner features have both comparatively high discernibility and independence. The importance of a feature is defined as the product of its discernibility and its independence (i.e., the area of the rectangular enclosed by the feature's coordinate lines and axes). The upper right corner features are by far the most important, comprising the optimal feature subset. Based on different definitions of independence using cosine similarity, there are three feature selection algorithms derived from SCFS. These are SCEFS (Standard deviation and Exponent Cosine similarity based Feature Selection), SCRFS (Standard deviation and Reciprocal Cosine similarity based Feature Selection) and SCAFS (Standard deviation and Anti-Cosine similarity based Feature Selection), respectively. The KNN and SVM classifiers are built based on the optimal feature subsets detected by these feature selection algorithms, respectively. The experimental results on 18 genomic datasets of cancers demonstrate that the proposed unsupervised feature selection algorithms SCEFS, SCRFS and SCAFS can detect the stable biomarkers with strong classification capability. This shows that the idea proposed in this paper is powerful. The functional analysis of these biomarkers show that the occurrence of the cancer is closely related to the biomarker gene regulation level. This fact will benefit cancer pathology research, drug development, early diagnosis, treatment and prevention.
| S-EPMC8155687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionResponse to treatment, according to Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale, is an easily interpretable outcome in clinical trials of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Yet, the CGI-I rating is sometimes reported as a continuous outcome, and converting it to dichotomous would allow meta-analysis to incorporate more evidence.MethodsClinical trials investigating medications for ASD and presenting both dichotomous and continuous CGI-I data were included. The number of patients with at least much improvement (CGI-I ≤ 2) were imputed from the CGI-I scale, assuming an underlying normal distribution of a latent continuous score using a primary threshold θ = 2.5 instead of θ = 2, which is the original cut-off in the CGI-I scale. The original and imputed values were used to calculate responder rates and odds ratios. The performance of the imputation method was investigated with a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), linear regression, Bland-Altman plots, and subgroup differences of summary estimates obtained from random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsData from 27 studies, 58 arms, and 1428 participants were used. The imputation method using the primary threshold (θ = 2.5) had good performance for the responder rates (CCC = 0.93 95% confidence intervals [0.86, 0.96]; β of linear regression = 1.04 [0.95, 1.13]; bias and limits of agreements = 4.32% [-8.1%, 16.74%]; no subgroup differences χ2 = 1.24, p-value = 0.266) and odds ratios (CCC = 0.91 [0.86, 0.96]; β = 0.96 [0.78, 1.14]; bias = 0.09 [-0.87, 1.04]; χ2 = 0.02, p-value = 0.894). The imputation method had poorer performance when the secondary threshold (θ = 2) was used.DiscussionAssuming a normal distribution of the CGI-I scale, the number of responders could be imputed from the mean and standard deviation and used in meta-analysis. Due to the wide limits of agreement of the imputation method, sensitivity analysis excluding studies with imputed values should be performed.
| S-EPMC8305379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Large-scale initiatives for obtaining spatial protein structures by experimental or computational means have accentuated the need for the critical assessment of protein structure determination and prediction methods. These include blind test projects such as the critical assessment of protein structure prediction (CASP) and the critical assessment of protein structure determination by nuclear magnetic resonance (CASD-NMR). An important aim is to establish structure validation criteria that can reliably assess the accuracy of a new protein structure. Various quality measures derived from the coordinates have been proposed. A universal structural quality assessment method should combine multiple individual scores in a meaningful way, which is challenging because of their different measurement units. Here, we present a method based on a generalized linear model (GLM) that combines diverse protein structure quality scores into a single quantity with intuitive meaning, namely the predicted coordinate root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) value between the present structure and the (unavailable) "true" structure (GLM-RMSD). For two sets of structural models from the CASD-NMR and CASP projects, this GLM-RMSD value was compared with the actual accuracy given by the RMSD value to the corresponding, experimentally determined reference structure from the Protein Data Bank (PDB). The correlation coefficients between actual (model vs. reference from PDB) and predicted (model vs. "true") heavy-atom RMSDs were 0.69 and 0.76, for the two datasets from CASD-NMR and CASP, respectively, which is considerably higher than those for the individual scores (-0.24 to 0.68). The GLM-RMSD can thus predict the accuracy of protein structures more reliably than individual coordinate-based quality scores.
| S-EPMC3324767 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Root mean-square deviation (RMSD) after roto-translational least-squares fitting is a measure of global structural similarity of macromolecules used commonly. On the other hand, experimental x-ray B-factors are used frequently to study local structural heterogeneity and dynamics in macromolecules by providing direct information about root mean-square fluctuations (RMSF) that can also be calculated from molecular dynamics simulations. We provide a mathematical derivation showing that, given a set of conservative assumptions, a root mean-square ensemble-average of an all-against-all distribution of pairwise RMSD for a single molecular species, <RMSD(2)>(1/2), is directly related to average B-factors (<B>) and <RMSF(2)>(1/2). We show this relationship and explore its limits of validity on a heterogeneous ensemble of structures taken from molecular dynamics simulations of villin headpiece generated using distributed-computing techniques and the Folding@Home cluster. Our results provide a basis for quantifying global structural diversity of macromolecules in crystals directly from x-ray experiments, and we show this on a large set of structures taken from the Protein Data Bank. In particular, we show that the ensemble-average pairwise backbone RMSD for a microscopic ensemble underlying a typical protein x-ray structure is approximately 1.1 A, under the assumption that the principal contribution to experimental B-factors is conformational variability.
| S-EPMC2830444 | biostudies-literature