Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 632

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Critical Review of Published Microarray Studies for Cancer Outcome and Guidelines on Statistical Analysis and Reporting

Dupuy, Alain, Simon, Richard M.·2007·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both the validity and the reproducibility of microarray-based clinical research have been challenged. There is a need for critical review of the statistical analysis and reporting in published microarray studies that focus on cancer-related clinical outcomes. METHODS: Studies published through 2004 in which microarray-based gene expression profiles were analyzed for their relation to a clinical cancer outcome were identified through a Medline search followed by hand screening of abstracts and full text articles. Studies that were eligible for our analysis addressed one or more outcomes that were either an event occurring during follow-up, such as death or relapse, or a therapeutic response. We recorded descriptive characteristics for all the selected studies. A critical review of outcome-related statistical analyses was undertaken for the articles published in 2004. RESULTS: Ninety studies were identified, and their descriptive characteristics are presented. Sixty-eight (76%) were published in journals of impact factor greater than 6. A detailed account of the 42 studies (47%) published in 2004 is reported. Twenty-one (50%) of them contained at least one of the following three basic flaws: 1) in outcome-related gene finding, an unstated, unclear, or inadequate control for multiple testing; 2) in class discovery, a spurious claim of correlation between clusters and clinical outcome, made after clustering samples using a selection of outcome-related differentially expressed genes; or 3) in supervised prediction, a biased estimation of the prediction accuracy through an incorrect cross-validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The most common and serious mistakes and misunderstandings recorded in published studies are described and illustrated. Based on this analysis, a proposal of guidelines for statistical analysis and reporting for clinical microarray studies, presented as a checklist of "Do's and Don'ts," is provided.

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/jnci/djk018

Cites

25 of 25 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 25 references

Cited by

See all 632

Metadata

Authors
Dupuy, A., & Simon, R. M.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2007-01-17
Volume
99
Issue
2
Pages
147-157
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2109103446
Cited by
632
References
25
FWCI
29.57
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: Critical Review of Published Microarray Studies for Cancer Outcome and Guidelines on Statistical Analysis and Reporting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djk018
The paper
Dupuy, A., & Simon, R. M. (2007). Critical Review of Published Microarray Studies for Cancer Outcome and Guidelines on Statistical Analysis and Reporting. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djk018

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.