Common errors in the implementation and interpretation of microarray studies

Transplantation

Volumn 99, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 470-475

  Reeve, Jeff ^a,b   Halloran, Philip F ^a,c   Kaplan, Bruce ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; DATA ANALYSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; VALIDATION PROCESS; ALGORITHM; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DNA MICROARRAY; GRAFT REJECTION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HEAT; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; METHODOLOGY; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GRAFT REJECTION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HOT TEMPERATURE; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSION; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; OLIGONUCLEOTIDE ARRAY SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84930514184     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000691     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Ambroise C, McLachlan GJ,. Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002; 99: 6562-6566
2. Dupuy A, Simon RM,. Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 147-157
3. Boulesteix AL, Strobl C, Augustin T, Daumer M,. Evaluating microarray-based classifiers: an overview. Cancer Inform. 2008; 6: 77-97
4. Subramanian J, Simon R,. Gene expression-based prognostic signatures in lung cancer: ready for clinical use? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102: 464-474
5. Shi L, Campbell G, Jones WD, The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray-based predictive models. Nat Biotechnol. 2010; 28: 827-838
6. Dudoit S, Fridlyand J, Speed TP,. Comparison of Discrimination Methods for the Classification of Tumors Using Gene Expression Data. J Am Statist Assoc. 2002; 97: 77-87
7. Steyerberg E,. Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating (Statistics for Biology and Health) 2008, Springer
8. Harrell FE,. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis (Springer Series in Statistics). 2001, Springer
9. Simon R, Radmacher MD, Dobbin K, McShane LM,. Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 14-18
10. Molinaro AM, Simon R, Pfeiffer RM,. Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods. Bioinformatics. 2005; 21: 3301-3307
11. Schramm S-J, Campain AE, Scolyer RA, Yang YH, Mann GJ,. Review and cross-validation of gene expression signatures and melanoma prognosis. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2012; 132: 274-283
12. Chibon F,. Cancer gene expression signatures-the rise and fall? Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49: 2000-2009
13. Koscielny S,. Why most gene expression signatures of tumors have not been useful in the clinic. Sci Transl Med. 2010; 2: 1-3
14. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR,. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978; 299: 926-930
15. Philbrick JT, Horwitz RI, Feinstein AR,. Methodologic problems of exercise testing for coronary artery disease: groups, analysis and bias. Am J Cardiol. 1980; 46: 807-812