↓ Skip to main content

Optimal alpha reduces error rates in gene expression studies: a meta-analysis approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Optimal alpha reduces error rates in gene expression studies: a meta-analysis approach
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1728-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. F. Mudge, C. J. Martyniuk, J. E. Houlahan

Abstract

Transcriptomic approaches (microarray and RNA-seq) have been a tremendous advance for molecular science in all disciplines, but they have made interpretation of hypothesis testing more difficult because of the large number of comparisons that are done within an experiment. The result has been a proliferation of techniques aimed at solving the multiple comparisons problem, techniques that have focused primarily on minimizing Type I error with little or no concern about concomitant increases in Type II errors. We have previously proposed a novel approach for setting statistical thresholds with applications for high throughput omics-data, optimal α, which minimizes the probability of making either error (i.e. Type I or II) and eliminates the need for post-hoc adjustments. A meta-analysis of 242 microarray studies extracted from the peer-reviewed literature found that current practices for setting statistical thresholds led to very high Type II error rates. Further, we demonstrate that applying the optimal α approach results in error rates as low or lower than error rates obtained when using (i) no post-hoc adjustment, (ii) a Bonferroni adjustment and (iii) a false discovery rate (FDR) adjustment which is widely used in transcriptome studies. We conclude that optimal α can reduce error rates associated with transcripts in both microarray and RNA-seq experiments, but point out that improved statistical techniques alone cannot solve the problems associated with high throughput datasets - these approaches need to be coupled with improved experimental design that considers larger sample sizes and/or greater study replication.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,942,299
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,063
of 7,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,406
of 316,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#74
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.