↓ Skip to main content

Ranking metrics in gene set enrichment analysis: do they matter?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
patent
1 patent
q&a
2 Q&A threads

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ranking metrics in gene set enrichment analysis: do they matter?
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1674-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Zyla, Michal Marczyk, January Weiner, Joanna Polanska

Abstract

There exist many methods for describing the complex relation between changes of gene expression in molecular pathways or gene ontologies under different experimental conditions. Among them, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis seems to be one of the most commonly used (over 10,000 citations). An important parameter, which could affect the final result, is the choice of a metric for the ranking of genes. Applying a default ranking metric may lead to poor results. In this work 28 benchmark data sets were used to evaluate the sensitivity and false positive rate of gene set analysis for 16 different ranking metrics including new proposals. Furthermore, the robustness of the chosen methods to sample size was tested. Using k-means clustering algorithm a group of four metrics with the highest performance in terms of overall sensitivity, overall false positive rate and computational load was established i.e. absolute value of Moderated Welch Test statistic, Minimum Significant Difference, absolute value of Signal-To-Noise ratio and Baumgartner-Weiss-Schindler test statistic. In case of false positive rate estimation, all selected ranking metrics were robust with respect to sample size. In case of sensitivity, the absolute value of Moderated Welch Test statistic and absolute value of Signal-To-Noise ratio gave stable results, while Baumgartner-Weiss-Schindler and Minimum Significant Difference showed better results for larger sample size. Finally, the Gene Set Enrichment Analysis method with all tested ranking metrics was parallelised and implemented in MATLAB, and is available at https://github.com/ZAEDPolSl/MrGSEA . Choosing a ranking metric in Gene Set Enrichment Analysis has critical impact on results of pathway enrichment analysis. The absolute value of Moderated Welch Test has the best overall sensitivity and Minimum Significant Difference has the best overall specificity of gene set analysis. When the number of non-normally distributed genes is high, using Baumgartner-Weiss-Schindler test statistic gives better outcomes. Also, it finds more enriched pathways than other tested metrics, which may induce new biological discoveries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 183 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 26%
Researcher 39 21%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 4%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 36 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 49 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 8%
Computer Science 12 6%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 43 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 30 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,724,173
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#306
of 7,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,523
of 324,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#7
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 324,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.