↓ Skip to main content

Alternative empirical Bayes models for adjusting for batch effects in genomic studies

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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Alternative empirical Bayes models for adjusting for batch effects in genomic studies
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2263-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuqing Zhang, David F. Jenkins, Solaiappan Manimaran, W. Evan Johnson

Abstract

Combining genomic data sets from multiple studies is advantageous to increase statistical power in studies where logistical considerations restrict sample size or require the sequential generation of data. However, significant technical heterogeneity is commonly observed across multiple batches of data that are generated from different processing or reagent batches, experimenters, protocols, or profiling platforms. These so-called batch effects often confound true biological relationships in the data, reducing the power benefits of combining multiple batches, and may even lead to spurious results in some combined studies. Therefore there is significant need for effective methods and software tools that account for batch effects in high-throughput genomic studies. Here we contribute multiple methods and software tools for improved combination and analysis of data from multiple batches. In particular, we provide batch effect solutions for cases where the severity of the batch effects is not extreme, and for cases where one high-quality batch can serve as a reference, such as the training set in a biomarker study. We illustrate our approaches and software in both simulated and real data scenarios. We demonstrate the value of these new contributions compared to currently established approaches in the specified batch correction situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 14%
Computer Science 15 13%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 31 27%
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 14 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,014,589
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,082
of 7,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,540
of 327,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#64
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,328 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 327,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.