From partial to whole genome imputation of SARS-CoV-2 for epidemiological surveillance. Test datasets.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJEB43882 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Dataset's files
| Action | DRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AND00023_WGS.chrlist.txt.gz | Txt | |||
| AND00023_WGS.consensus.fa.gz | Other | |||
| AND00040_WGS.chrlist.txt.gz | Txt | |||
| AND00040_WGS.consensus.fa.gz | Other | |||
| AND00065_WGS.chrlist.txt.gz | Txt |
Items per page: 5 1 - 5 of 68 |
Similar Datasets
Project description:DCEG Imputation Reference Dataset
| PRJNA75845 | ENA
Project description:Missing values in proteomic data sets have real consequences on downstream data analysis and reproducibility. Although several imputation methods exist to handle missing values, no single imputation method is best suited for a diverse range of data sets, and no clear strategy exists for evaluating imputation methods for large-scale DIA-MS data sets, especially at different levels of protein quantification. To navigate through the different imputation strategies available in the literature, we have established a workflow to assess imputation methods on large-scale label-free DIA-MS data sets. We used three DIA-MS data sets with real missing values to evaluate eight different imputation methods with multiple parameters at different levels of protein quantification; dilution series data set, a small pilot data set, and a larger proteomic data set.
2021-05-07 | PXD023012 | Pride
Project description:Missing values in proteomic data sets have real consequences on downstream data analysis and reproducibility. Although several imputation methods exist to handle missing values, no single imputation method is best suited for a diverse range of data sets, and no clear strategy exists for evaluating imputation methods for large-scale DIA-MS data sets, especially at different levels of protein quantification. To navigate through the different imputation strategies available in the literature, we have established a workflow to assess imputation methods on large-scale label-free DIA-MS data sets. We used three DIA-MS data sets with real missing values to evaluate eight different imputation methods with multiple parameters at different levels of protein quantification; dilution series data set, a small pilot data set, and a larger proteomic data set.
2021-05-07 | PXD022996 | Pride
Project description:Missing values in proteomic data sets have real consequences on downstream data analysis and reproducibility. Although several imputation methods exist to handle missing values, no single imputation method is best suited for a diverse range of data sets, and no clear strategy exists for evaluating imputation methods for large-scale DIA-MS data sets, especially at different levels of protein quantification. To navigate through the different imputation strategies available in the literature, we have established a workflow to assess imputation methods on large-scale label-free DIA-MS data sets. We used three DIA-MS data sets with real missing values to evaluate eight different imputation methods with multiple parameters at different levels of protein quantification; dilution series data set, a small pilot data set, and a larger proteomic data set of clinical ovarian cancer patient samples.
2021-05-07 | PXD023040 | Pride
Project description:Imputation panel created from UK10K_COHORT_ALSPAC (EGAD00001000740) and UK10K_COHORT_TWINSUK (EGAD00001000741) datasets.
| EGAS00001000713 | EGA
Project description:The demo datasets available for MSCohort analysis. You can download to inspect their formats and practice using the software tool.
2024-10-24 | PXD057133 |
Project description:IntroductionFor tests reporting continuous results, primary studies usually provide test performance at multiple but often different thresholds. This creates missing data when performing a meta-analysis at each threshold. A standard meta-analysis (no imputation [NI]) ignores such missing data. A single imputation (SI) approach was recently proposed to recover missing threshold results. Here, we propose a new method that performs multiple imputation of the missing threshold results using discrete combinations (MIDC).MethodsThe new MIDC method imputes missing threshold results by randomly selecting from the set of all possible discrete combinations which lie between the results for 2 known bounding thresholds. Imputed and observed results are then synthesised at each threshold. This is repeated multiple times, and the multiple pooled results at each threshold are combined using Rubin's rules to give final estimates. We compared the NI, SI, and MIDC approaches via simulation.ResultsBoth imputation methods outperform the NI method in simulations. There was generally little difference in the SI and MIDC methods, but the latter was noticeably better in terms of estimating the between-study variances and generally gave better coverage, due to slightly larger standard errors of pooled estimates. Given selective reporting of thresholds, the imputation methods also reduced bias in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Simulations demonstrate the imputation methods rely on an equal threshold spacing assumption. A real example is presented.ConclusionsThe SI and, in particular, MIDC methods can be used to examine the impact of missing threshold results in meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.
| S-EPMC5873416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gas chromatography-coupled mass spectrometry (GC-MS) has been used in biomedical research to analyze volatile, non-polar, and polar metabolites in a wide array of sample types. Despite advances in technology, missing values are still common in metabolomics datasets and must be properly handled. We evaluated the performance of ten commonly used missing value imputa-tion methods with metabolites analyzed on an HR GC-MS instrument. By introducing missing values into the complete (i.e., data without any missing values) NIST plasma dataset we demon-strate that Random Forest (RF), Glmnet Ridge Regression (GRR), and Bayesian Principal Com-ponent Analysis (BPCA) shared the lowest Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) in technical repli-cate data. Further examination of these three methods in data from baboon plasma and liver samples demonstrated they all maintained high accuracy. Overall, our analysis suggests that any of the three imputation methods can be applied effectively to untargeted metabolomics datasets with high accuracy. However, it is important to note that imputation will alter the correlation structure of the dataset, and bias downstream regression coefficients and p-values.
2022-04-01 | ST002132 | MetabolomicsWorkbench
Project description:Introduction. The microarray datasets from the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project have enabled the assessment of the precision, comparability of microarrays, and other various microarray analysis methods. However, to date no studies that we are aware of have reported the performance of missing value imputation schemes on the MAQC datasets. In this study, we use the MAQC Affymetrix datasets to evaluate several imputation procedures in Affymetrix microarrays. Results. We evaluated several cutting edge imputation procedures and compared them using different error measures. We randomly deleted 5% and 10% of the data and imputed the missing values using imputation tests. We performed 1000 simulations and averaged the results. The results for both 5% and 10% deletion are similar. Among the imputation methods, we observe the local least squares method with k = 4 is most accurate under the error measures considered. The k-nearest neighbor method with k = 1 has the highest error rate among imputation methods and error measures. Conclusions. We conclude for imputing missing values in Affymetrix microarray datasets, using the MAS 5.0 preprocessing scheme, the local least squares method with k = 4 has the best overall performance and k-nearest neighbor method with k = 1 has the worst overall performance. These results hold true for both 5% and 10% missing values.
| S-EPMC3809938 | biostudies-literature