比较和可视化的协议配对列表的排名。

Pub Date : 2017-03-01 DOI:10.1515/sagmb-2016-0036
Margaret R Donald, Susan R Wilson
{"title":"比较和可视化的协议配对列表的排名。","authors":"Margaret R Donald,&nbsp;Susan R Wilson","doi":"10.1515/sagmb-2016-0036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Output from analysis of a high-throughput 'omics' experiment very often is a ranked list. One commonly encountered example is a ranked list of differentially expressed genes from a gene expression experiment, with a length of many hundreds of genes. There are numerous situations where interest is in the comparison of outputs following, say, two (or more) different experiments, or of different approaches to the analysis that produce different ranked lists. Rather than considering exact agreement between the rankings, following others, we consider two ranked lists to be in agreement if the rankings differ by some fixed distance. Generally only a relatively small subset of the k top-ranked items will be in agreement. So the aim is to find the point k at which the probability of agreement in rankings changes from being greater than 0.5 to being less than 0.5. We use penalized splines and a Bayesian logit model, to give a nonparametric smooth to the sequence of agreements, as well as pointwise credible intervals for the probability of agreement. Our approach produces a point estimate and a credible interval for k. R code is provided. The method is applied to rankings of genes from breast cancer microarray experiments.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/sagmb-2016-0036","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison and visualisation of agreement for paired lists of rankings.\",\"authors\":\"Margaret R Donald,&nbsp;Susan R Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/sagmb-2016-0036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Output from analysis of a high-throughput 'omics' experiment very often is a ranked list. One commonly encountered example is a ranked list of differentially expressed genes from a gene expression experiment, with a length of many hundreds of genes. There are numerous situations where interest is in the comparison of outputs following, say, two (or more) different experiments, or of different approaches to the analysis that produce different ranked lists. Rather than considering exact agreement between the rankings, following others, we consider two ranked lists to be in agreement if the rankings differ by some fixed distance. Generally only a relatively small subset of the k top-ranked items will be in agreement. So the aim is to find the point k at which the probability of agreement in rankings changes from being greater than 0.5 to being less than 0.5. We use penalized splines and a Bayesian logit model, to give a nonparametric smooth to the sequence of agreements, as well as pointwise credible intervals for the probability of agreement. Our approach produces a point estimate and a credible interval for k. R code is provided. The method is applied to rankings of genes from breast cancer microarray experiments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/sagmb-2016-0036\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/sagmb-2016-0036\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sagmb-2016-0036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

高通量“组学”实验的分析结果通常是一个排名列表。一个常见的例子是来自基因表达实验的差异表达基因的排序列表,长度为数百个基因。在许多情况下,我们感兴趣的是比较两个(或更多)不同实验之后的输出,或者比较产生不同排名列表的不同分析方法。如果两个排名表的排名相差一定的距离,我们就认为它们是一致的,而不是考虑它们之间的排名是否完全一致。一般来说,只有k个排名靠前的项目中相对较小的一部分是一致的。因此,我们的目标是找到k点,在这个点上,排名一致的概率从大于0.5变为小于0.5。我们使用惩罚样条和贝叶斯逻辑模型,给出了协议序列的非参数平滑,以及协议概率的点向可信区间。我们的方法产生k的点估计和可信区间。提供了R代码。该方法应用于乳腺癌微阵列实验中基因的排序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Comparison and visualisation of agreement for paired lists of rankings.

Output from analysis of a high-throughput 'omics' experiment very often is a ranked list. One commonly encountered example is a ranked list of differentially expressed genes from a gene expression experiment, with a length of many hundreds of genes. There are numerous situations where interest is in the comparison of outputs following, say, two (or more) different experiments, or of different approaches to the analysis that produce different ranked lists. Rather than considering exact agreement between the rankings, following others, we consider two ranked lists to be in agreement if the rankings differ by some fixed distance. Generally only a relatively small subset of the k top-ranked items will be in agreement. So the aim is to find the point k at which the probability of agreement in rankings changes from being greater than 0.5 to being less than 0.5. We use penalized splines and a Bayesian logit model, to give a nonparametric smooth to the sequence of agreements, as well as pointwise credible intervals for the probability of agreement. Our approach produces a point estimate and a credible interval for k. R code is provided. The method is applied to rankings of genes from breast cancer microarray experiments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1