Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Hamish S. Scott
dblp:51/1861
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
0000-0002-5813-631XORCID · 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% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology
cancer genomics |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | A comparative analysis of algorithms for somatic SNV detection in cancer · Bioinform. 2013 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › genomics
variant calling |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | A comparative analysis of algorithms for somatic SNV detection in cancer · Bioinform. 2013 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
differential expression analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Use of within-array replicate spots for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments · Bioinform. 2005 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
microarray data analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Use of within-array replicate spots for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments · Bioinform. 2005 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
empirical bayes |
0.0 | 1 | 2005 | Use of within-array replicate spots for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments · Bioinform. 2005 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
variant filtering · 0.2exome sequencing · 0.2linear model · 0.1empirical bayes · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | A comparative analysis of algorithms for somatic SNV detection in cancerabstractMOTIVATION: With the advent of relatively affordable high-throughput technologies, DNA sequencing of cancers is now common practice in cancer research projects and will be increasingly used in clinical practice to inform diagnosis and treatment. Somatic (cancer-only) single nucleotide variants (SNVs) are the simplest class of mutation, yet their identification in DNA sequencing data is confounded by germline polymorphisms, tumour heterogeneity and sequencing and analysis errors. Four recently published algorithms for the detection of somatic SNV sites in matched cancer-normal sequencing datasets are VarScan, SomaticSniper, JointSNVMix and Strelka. In this analysis, we apply these four SNV calling algorithms to cancer-normal Illumina exome sequencing of a chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patient. The candidate SNV sites returned by each algorithm are filtered to remove likely false positives, then characterized and compared to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of each SNV calling algorithm. RESULTS: Comparing the candidate SNV sets returned by VarScan, SomaticSniper, JointSNVMix2 and Strelka revealed substantial differences with respect to the number and character of sites returned; the somatic probability scores assigned to the same sites; their susceptibility to various sources of noise; and their sensitivities to low-allelic-fraction candidates. AVAILABILITY: Data accession number SRA081939, code at http://code.google.com/p/snv-caller-review/ CONTACT: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. Nicola D. Roberts, R. Daniel Kortschak, Wendy T. Parker, Andreas W. Schreiber, Susan Branford, Hamish S. Scott, Garique Glonek, David L. Adelson |
Bioinform. | 6 |
| 2005 | Use of within-array replicate spots for assessing differential expression in microarray experimentsabstractMOTIVATION: Spotted arrays are often printed with probes in duplicate or triplicate, but current methods for assessing differential expression are not able to make full use of the resulting information. The usual practice is to average the duplicate or triplicate results for each probe before assessing differential expression. This results in the loss of valuable information about genewise variability. RESULTS: A method is proposed for extracting more information from within-array replicate spots in microarray experiments by estimating the strength of the correlation between them. The method involves fitting separate linear models to the expression data for each gene but with a common value for the between-replicate correlation. The method greatly improves the precision with which the genewise variances are estimated and thereby improves inference methods designed to identify differentially expressed genes. The method may be combined with empirical Bayes methods for moderating the genewise variances between genes. The method is validated using data from a microarray experiment involving calibration and ratio control spots in conjunction with spiked-in RNA. Comparing results for calibration and ratio control spots shows that the common correlation method results in substantially better discrimination of differentially expressed genes from those which are not. The spike-in experiment also confirms that the results may be further improved by empirical Bayes smoothing of the variances when the sample size is small. AVAILABILITY: The methodology is implemented in the limma software package for R, available from the CRAN repository http://www.r-project.org Gordon K. Smyth, Joëlle Michaud, Hamish S. Scott |
Bioinform. | 3 |