Author
Listed:
- Liang Yulan
(Department of Family and Community Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21201-1579, USA)
- Kelemen Adam
(Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA)
- Kelemen Arpad
(Department of Organizational Systems and Adult Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21201-1579, USA)
Abstract
Reproducibility of disease signatures and clinical biomarkers in multi-omics disease analysis has been a key challenge due to a multitude of factors. The heterogeneity of the limited sample, various biological factors such as environmental confounders, and the inherent experimental and technical noises, compounded with the inadequacy of statistical tools, can lead to the misinterpretation of results, and subsequently very different biology. In this paper, we investigate the biomarker reproducibility issues, potentially caused by differences of statistical methods with varied distribution assumptions or marker selection criteria using Mass Spectrometry proteomic ovarian tumor data. We examine the relationship between effect sizes, p values, Cauchy p values, False Discovery Rate p values, and the rank fractions of identified proteins out of thousands in the limited heterogeneous sample. We compared the markers identified from statistical single features selection approaches with machine learning wrapper methods. The results reveal marked differences when selecting the protein markers from varied methods with potential selection biases and false discoveries, which may be due to the small effects, different distribution assumptions, and p value type criteria versus prediction accuracies. The alternative solutions and other related issues are discussed in supporting the reproducibility of findings for clinical actionable outcomes.
Suggested Citation
Liang Yulan & Kelemen Adam & Kelemen Arpad, 2019.
"Reproducibility of biomarker identifications from mass spectrometry proteomic data in cancer studies,"
Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 18(3), pages 1-13, June.
Handle:
RePEc:bpj:sagmbi:v:18:y:2019:i:3:p:13:n:3
DOI: 10.1515/sagmb-2018-0039
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:sagmbi:v:18:y:2019:i:3:p:13:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyterbrill.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.