The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Combining multiple microarray studies and modeling interstudy variation
Abstract
We have established a method for systematic integration of multiple microarray datasets. The method was applied to two different sets of cancer profiling studies. The change of gene expression in cancer was expressed as ’ effect size’, a standardized index measuring the magnitude of a treatment or covariate effect. The effect sizes were combined to obtain the estimate of the overall mean. The statistical significance was determined by a permutation test extended to multiple datasets. It was shown that the data integration promotes the discovery of small but consistent expression changes with increased sensitivity and reliability. The effect size methods provided the efficient modeling framework for addressing interstudy variation as well. Based on the result of homogeneity tests, a fixed effects model was adopted for one set of datasets that had been created in controlled experimental conditions. By contrast, a random effects model was shown to be appropriate for the other set of datasets that had been published by independent groups. We also developed an alternative modeling procedure based on a Bayesian approach, which would offer flexibility and robustness compared to the classical procedure. Contact: jkchoi@kaist.ac.kr Keywords: microarray, meta-analysis, effect size, Bayesian meta-analysis *To whom correspondence should be addressed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study
Smith, T. C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Thomas, A. (1995) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780142408 · Cited by 568 · cited 1×
“Additionally, the hierarchical formulation of a REM would be extended for Bayesian interpretations (DuMouchel and Harris, 1983; Morris and Normand, 1992; Smith et al., 1995; Normand, 1999).”
Background
Cited by
Coexpression Analysis of Human Genes Across Many Microarray Data Sets
Lee, H. K., Hsu, A. K., Sajdak, J., Qin, J., & Pavlidis, P. (2004) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.1910904 · Cited by 770
Comprehensive literature review and statistical considerations for microarray meta-analysis
Tseng, G. C., Ghosh, D., & Feingold, E. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkr1265 · Cited by 526
Whole-Genome Analysis of the SHORT-ROOT Developmental Pathway in Arabidopsis
Levesque, M. P., Vernoux, T., Busch, W., Cui, H., Wang, J. Y., Blilou, I., Hassan, H., Nakajima, K., Matsumoto, N., Lohmann, J. U., et al. (2006) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040143 · Cited by 349
When is hub gene selection better than standard meta-analysis?
Langfelder, P., Mischel, P. S., & Horvath, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061505 · Cited by 313
Differential coexpression analysis using microarray data and its application to human cancer
Choi, J. K., Yu, U., Yoo, O. J., & Kim, S. (2005) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti722 · Cited by 265
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Choi, J. K., Yu, U., Kim, S., & Yoo, O. J.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-07-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- suppl_1
- Pages
- i84-i90
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2152155643
- Cited by
- 415
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Combining multiple microarray studies and modeling interstudy variation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg1010
- The paper
- Choi, J. K., Yu, U., Kim, S., & Yoo, O. J. (2003). Combining multiple microarray studies and modeling interstudy variation. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg1010
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.