Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Peter S. Nelson

dblp:58/2510 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
0000-0002-5451-5726ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis › microarray data preprocessing
microarray data normalization
0.112010
Supervised normalization of microarrays · Bioinform. 2010
Bioinformatics and computational biology › data integration
bayesian data integration
0.012004
Bayesian integrated functional analysis of microarray data · Bioinform. 2004
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
microarray data analysis
0.012004
Bayesian integrated functional analysis of microarray data · Bioinform. 2004
Bioinformatics and computational biology
gene expression analysis
0.012010
Supervised normalization of microarrays · Bioinform. 2010

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

study-specific model fitting · 0.1hierarchical bayesian model · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Supervised normalization of microarrays
abstract
MOTIVATION: A major challenge in utilizing microarray technologies to measure nucleic acid abundances is 'normalization', the goal of which is to separate biologically meaningful signal from other confounding sources of signal, often due to unavoidable technical factors. It is intuitively clear that true biological signal and confounding factors need to be simultaneously considered when performing normalization. However, the most popular normalization approaches do not utilize what is known about the study, both in terms of the biological variables of interest and the known technical factors in the study, such as batch or array processing date. RESULTS: We show here that failing to include all study-specific biological and technical variables when performing normalization leads to biased downstream analyses. We propose a general normalization framework that fits a study-specific model employing every known variable that is relevant to the expression study. The proposed method is generally applicable to the full range of existing probe designs, as well as to both single-channel and dual-channel arrays. We show through real and simulated examples that the method has favorable operating characteristics in comparison to some of the most highly used normalization methods. AVAILABILITY: An R package called snm implementing the methodology will be made available from Bioconductor (http://bioconductor.org). CONTACT: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Brigham H. Mecham, Peter S. Nelson, John D. Storey
Bioinform.2
2004 Bayesian integrated functional analysis of microarray data
abstract
MOTIVATION: The statistical analysis of microarray data usually proceeds in a sequential manner, with the output of the previous step always serving as the input of the next one. However, the methods currently used in such analyses do not properly account for the fact that the intermediate results may not always be correct, then leading to cumulating error in the inferences drawn based on such steps. RESULTS: Here we show that, by an application of hierarchical Bayesian methodology, this sequential procedure can be replaced by a single joint analysis, while systematically accounting for the uncertainties in this process. Moreover, we can also integrate relevant functional information available from databases into such an analysis, thereby increasing the reliability of the biological conclusions that are drawn. We illustrate these points by analysing real data and by showing that the genes can be divided into categories of interest, with the defining characteristic depending on the biological question that is considered. We contend that the proposed method has advantages at two levels. First, there are gains in the statistical and biological results from the analysis of this particular dataset. Second, it opens up new possibilities in analysing microarray data in general.
Madhuchhanda Bhattacharjee, Colin C. Pritchard, Peter S. Nelson, Elja Arjas
Bioinform.3