Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 621

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF protein patterns in serum: comparing datasets from different experiments

Open access
Baggerly, Keith A., Morris, Jeffrey S., Coombes, Kevin R.·2004·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: There has been much interest in using patterns derived from surface-enhanced laser desorption and ionization (SELDI) protein mass spectra from serum to differentiate samples from patients both with and without disease. Such patterns have been used without identification of the underlying proteins responsible. However, there are questions as to the stability of this procedure over multiple experiments. Results: We compared SELDI proteomic spectra from serum from three experiments by the same group on separating ovarian cancer from normal tissue. These spectra are available on the web at http://clinicalproteomics.steem.com. In general, the results were not reproducible across experiments. Baseline correction prevents reproduction of the results for two of the experiments. In one experiment, there is evidence of a major shift in protocol mid-experiment which could bias the results. In another, structure in the noise regions of the spectra allows us to distinguish normal from cancer, suggesting that the normals and cancers were processed differently. Sets of features found to discriminate well in one experiment do not generalize to other experiments. Finally, the mass calibration in all three experiments appears suspect. Taken together, these and other concerns suggest that much of the structure uncovered in these experiments could be due to artifacts of sample processing, not to the underlying biology of cancer. We provide some guidelines for design and analysis in experiments like these to ensure better reproducible, biologically meaningfully results. Availability: The MATLAB and Perl code used in our analyses is available at http://bioinformatics.mdanderson.org

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg484

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 621

Metadata

Authors
Baggerly, K. A., Morris, J. S., & Coombes, K. R.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2004-01-29
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
777-785
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2161371306
Cited by
621
References
9
FWCI
43.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF protein patterns in serum: comparing datasets from different experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg484
The paper
Baggerly, K. A., Morris, J. S., & Coombes, K. R. (2004). Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF protein patterns in serum: comparing datasets from different experiments. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg484

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.