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.

Gerald van Belle

dblp:28/5490 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

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
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 1, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology
gene expression
0.112008
A note on the false discovery rate and inconsistent comparisons between experiments · Bioinform. 2008

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

p-values · 0.1false discovery rate · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 A note on the false discovery rate and inconsistent comparisons between experiments
abstract
MOTIVATION: The false discovery rate (FDR) has been widely adopted to address the multiple comparisons issue in high-throughput experiments such as microarray gene-expression studies. However, while the FDR is quite useful as an approach to limit false discoveries within a single experiment, like other multiple comparison corrections it may be an inappropriate way to compare results across experiments. This article uses several examples based on gene-expression data to demonstrate the potential misinterpretations that can arise from using FDR to compare across experiments. Researchers should be aware of these pitfalls and wary of using FDR to compare experimental results. FDR should be augmented with other measures such as p-values and expression ratios. It is worth including standard error and variance information for meta-analyses and, if possible, the raw data for re-analyses. This is especially important for high-throughput studies because data are often re-used for different objectives, including comparing common elements across many experiments. No single error rate or data summary may be appropriate for all of the different objectives.
Roger Higdon, Gerald van Belle, Eugene Kolker
Bioinform.2