↓ Skip to main content

Beyond the one-way ANOVA for ’omics data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Beyond the one-way ANOVA for ’omics data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2173-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirsty L. Hassall, Andrew Mead

Abstract

With ever increasing accessibility to high throughput technologies, more complex treatment structures can be assessed in a variety of 'omics applications. This adds an extra layer of complexity to the analysis and interpretation, in particular when inferential univariate methods are applied en masse. It is well-known that mass univariate testing suffers from multiplicity issues and although this has been well documented for simple comparative tests, few approaches have focussed on more complex explanatory structures. Two frameworks are introduced incorporating corrections for multiplicity whilst maintaining appropriate structure in the explanatory variables. Within this paradigm, a choice has to be made as to whether multiplicity corrections should be applied to the saturated model, putting emphasis on controlling the rate of false positives, or to the predictive model, where emphasis is on model selection. This choice has implications for both the ranking and selection of the response variables identified as differentially expressed. The theoretical difference is demonstrated between the two approaches along with an empirical study of lipid composition in Arabidopsis under differing levels of salt stress. Multiplicity corrections have an inherent weakness when the full explanatory structure is not properly incorporated. Although a unifying 'single best' recommendation is not provided, two reasonable alternatives are provided and the applicability of these approaches is discussed for different scenarios where the aims of analysis will differ. The key result is that the point at which multiplicity is incorporated into the analysis will fundamentally change the interpretation of the results, and the choice of approach should therefore be driven by the specific aims of the experiment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 26%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 20%
Computer Science 4 6%
Mathematics 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,431,072
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,561
of 7,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,393
of 327,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#53
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.