The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative analysis of algorithms for identifying amplifications and deletions in array CGH data
Open accessAbstract
MOTIVATION: Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) can reveal chromosomal aberrations in the genomic DNA. These amplifications and deletions at the DNA level are important in the pathogenesis of cancer and other diseases. While a large number of approaches have been proposed for analyzing the large array CGH datasets, the relative merits of these methods in practice are not clear. RESULTS: We compare 11 different algorithms for analyzing array CGH data. These include both segment detection methods and smoothing methods, based on diverse techniques such as mixture models, Hidden Markov Models, maximum likelihood, regression, wavelets and genetic algorithms. We compute the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves using simulated data to quantify sensitivity and specificity for various levels of signal-to-noise ratio and different sizes of abnormalities. We also characterize their performance on chromosomal regions of interest in a real dataset obtained from patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme. While comparisons of this type are difficult due to possibly sub-optimal choice of parameters in the methods, they nevertheless reveal general characteristics that are helpful to the biological investigator.
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
Smyth, G. K. (2004) · Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology · doi:10.2202/1544-6115.1027 · Cited by 11,829
Array comparative genomic hybridization and its applications in cancer
Pinkel, D., & Albertson, D. G. (2005) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1569 · Cited by 585
Genome scanning with array CGH delineates regional alterations in mouse islet carcinomas
Hodgson, G., Hager, J. H., Volik, S., Hariono, S., Wernick, M., Moore, D., Albertson, D. G., Pinkel, D., Collins, C., Hanahan, D., et al. (2001) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng771 · Cited by 294
Cited by
ChIP–seq: advantages and challenges of a maturing technology
Park, P. J. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2641 · Cited by 2,217
Self-citationchangepoint : An R Package for Changepoint Analysis
Killick, R., & Eckley, I. A. (2014) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v058.i03 · Cited by 1,330
A faster circular binary segmentation algorithm for the analysis of array CGH data
Venkatraman, E. S., & Olshen, A. B. (2007) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl646 · Cited by 961
LaFramboise, T. (2009) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkp552 · Cited by 467
Human and mouse oligonucleotide-based array CGH
van den IJssel, P. (2005) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gni191 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Lai, W. R., Johnson, M. D., Kucherlapati, R., & Park, P. J.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-08-04
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 3763-3770
- ISSN
- 0266-7061 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4803
- 1460-2059
- OpenAlex
- W2127710810
- Cited by
- 402
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 17.65
- 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: Comparative analysis of algorithms for identifying amplifications and deletions in array CGH data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti611
- The paper
- Lai, W. R., Johnson, M. D., Kucherlapati, R., & Park, P. J. (2005). Comparative analysis of algorithms for identifying amplifications and deletions in array CGH data. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti611
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.