Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Joseph F. Heyse
dblp:87/7067
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
0000-0003-3617-3248ORCID · 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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology › functional genomics
RNAi screen analysis |
0.2 | 2 | 2011 | cSSMD: assessing collective activity for addressing off-target effects in genome-scale RNA interference screens · Bioinform. 2011 Determination of sample size in genome-scale RNAi screens · Bioinform. 2009 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
functional genomics |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | cSSMD: assessing collective activity for addressing off-target effects in genome-scale RNA interference screens · Bioinform. 2011 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › biostatistics › statistical bioinformatics
statistical genomics |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | cSSMD: assessing collective activity for addressing off-target effects in genome-scale RNA interference screens · Bioinform. 2011 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › biostatistics
sample size determination |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Determination of sample size in genome-scale RNAi screens · Bioinform. 2009 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
t-test · 0.1RSA · 0.1RIGER · 0.1false positive rate analysis · 0.1false negative rate analysis · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | cSSMD: assessing collective activity for addressing off-target effects in genome-scale RNA interference screensabstractMOTIVATION: Off-target activity commonly exists in RNA interference (RNAi) screens and often generates false positives. Existing analytic methods for addressing the off-target effects are demonstrably inadequate in RNAi confirmatory screens. RESULTS: Here, we present an analytic method assessing the collective activity of multiple short interfering RNAs (siRNAs) targeting a gene. Using this method, we can not only reduce the impact of off-target activities, but also evaluate the specific effect of an siRNA, thus providing information about potential off-target effects. Using in-house RNAi screens, we demonstrate that our method obtains more reasonable and sensible results than current methods such as the redundant siRNA activity (RSA) method, the RNAi gene enrichment ranking (RIGER) method, the frequency approach and the t-test. CONTACT: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. Xiaohua Douglas Zhang, Francesca Santini, Raul Lacson, Shane D. Marine, Luca Benetti, Ruojing Yang, Alex McCampbell, Joel P. Berger, Dawn M. Toolan, Erica M. Stec, Daniel J. Holder, Keith A. Soper, Joseph F. Heyse, Marc Ferrer |
Bioinform. | 14 |
| 2009 | Determination of sample size in genome-scale RNAi screensabstractMOTIVATION: For genome-scale RNAi research, it is critical to investigate sample size required for the achievement of reasonably low false negative rate (FNR) and false positive rate. RESULTS: The analysis in this article reveals that current design of sample size contributes to the occurrence of low signal-to-noise ratio in genome-scale RNAi projects. The analysis suggests that (i) an arrangement of 16 wells per plate is acceptable and an arrangement of 20-24 wells per plate is preferable for a negative control to be used for hit selection in a primary screen without replicates; (ii) in a confirmatory screen or a primary screen with replicates, a sample size of 3 is not large enough, and there is a large reduction in FNRs when sample size increases from 3 to 4. To search a tradeoff between benefit and cost, any sample size between 4 and 11 is a reasonable choice. If the main focus is the selection of siRNAs with strong effects, a sample size of 4 or 5 is a good choice. If we want to have enough power to detect siRNAs with moderate effects, sample size needs to be 8, 9, 10 or 11. These discoveries about sample size bring insight to the design of a genome-scale RNAi screen experiment. Xiaohua Douglas Zhang, Joseph F. Heyse |
Bioinform. | 2 |