Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trials and tribulations of ‘omics data analysis: assessing quality of SIMCA-based multivariate models using examples from pulmonary medicine

Open access
Wheelock, Åsa M, Wheelock, Craig E·2013·Molecular BioSystems

Abstract

Respiratory diseases are multifactorial heterogeneous diseases that have proved recalcitrant to understanding using focused molecular techniques. This trend has led to the rise of ‘omics approaches (e.g., transcriptomics, proteomics) and subsequent acquisition of large-scale datasets consisting of multiple variables. In ‘omics technology-based investigations, discrepancies between the number of variables analyzed (e.g., mRNA, proteins, metabolites) and the number of study subjects constitutes a major statistical challenge. The application of traditional univariate statistical methods (e.g., t-test) to these “short-and-wide” datasets may result in high numbers of false positives, while the predominant approach of p-value correction to account for these high false positive rates (e.g., FDR, Bonferroni) are associated with significant losses in statistical power. In other words, the benefit in decreased false positives must be counterbalanced with a concomitant loss in true positives. As an alternative, multivariate statistical analysis (MVA) is increasingly being employed to cope with ‘omics-based data structures. When properly applied, MVA approaches can be powerful tools for integration and interpretation of complex ‘omics-based datasets towards the goal of identifying biomarkers and/or subphenotypes. However, MVA methods are also prone to over-interpretation and misuse. A common software used in biomedical research to perform MVA-based analyses is the SIMCA package, which includes multiple MVA methods. In this opinion piece, we propose guidelines for minimum reporting standards for a SIMCA-based workflow, in terms of data preprocessing (e.g., normalization, scaling) and model statistics (number of components, R2, Q2, and CV-ANOVA p-value). Examples of these applications in recent COPD and asthma studies are provided. It is expected that readers will gain an increased understanding of the power and utility of MVA methods for applications in biomedical research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c3mb70194h

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Wheelock, Å. M., & Wheelock, C. E.
Venue
Molecular BioSystems
Published
2013-08-20
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
2589-2596
ISSN
  • 1742-2051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-206X
OpenAlex
W2152611039
Cited by
339
References
49
FWCI
16.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trials and tribulations of ‘omics data analysis: assessing quality of SIMCA-based multivariate models using examples from pulmonary medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/c3mb70194h
The paper
Wheelock, Å. M., & Wheelock, C. E. (2013). Trials and tribulations of ‘omics data analysis: assessing quality of SIMCA-based multivariate models using examples from pulmonary medicine. Molecular BioSystems. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3mb70194h

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.