Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Fred Heffron
dblp:34/7102
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none
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
1 paper |
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 › proteomics › quantitative proteomics
label-free quantification |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | A statistical framework for protein quantitation in bottom-up MS-based proteomics · Bioinform. 2009 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › proteomics
mass spectrometry data analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | A statistical framework for protein quantitation in bottom-up MS-based proteomics · Bioinform. 2009 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › proteomics
protein quantification |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | A statistical framework for protein quantitation in bottom-up MS-based proteomics · Bioinform. 2009 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
proteomics |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | A statistical framework for protein quantitation in bottom-up MS-based proteomics · Bioinform. 2009 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical modeling · 0.1maximum likelihood estimation · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | A statistical framework for protein quantitation in bottom-up MS-based proteomicsabstractMOTIVATION: Quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics requires protein-level estimates and associated confidence measures. Challenges include the presence of low quality or incorrectly identified peptides and informative missingness. Furthermore, models are required for rolling peptide-level information up to the protein level. RESULTS: We present a statistical model that carefully accounts for informative missingness in peak intensities and allows unbiased, model-based, protein-level estimation and inference. The model is applicable to both label-based and label-free quantitation experiments. We also provide automated, model-based, algorithms for filtering of proteins and peptides as well as imputation of missing values. Two LC/MS datasets are used to illustrate the methods. In simulation studies, our methods are shown to achieve substantially more discoveries than standard alternatives. AVAILABILITY: The software has been made available in the open-source proteomics platform DAnTE (http://omics.pnl.gov/software/). Yuliya V. Karpievitch, Jeff Stanley, Thomas Taverner, Joshua N. Adkins, Charles Ansong, Fred Heffron, Thomas O. Metz, Wei-Jun Qian, Hyunjin Yoon, Richard D. Smith, Alan R. Dabney |
Bioinform. | 7 |
| 2008 | Gene set analyses for interpreting microarray experiments on prokaryotic organismsabstractBACKGROUND: Despite the widespread usage of DNA microarrays, questions remain about how best to interpret the wealth of gene-by-gene transcriptional levels that they measure. Recently, methods have been proposed which use biologically defined sets of genes in interpretation, instead of examining results gene-by-gene. Despite a serious limitation, a method based on Fisher's exact test remains one of the few plausible options for gene set analysis when an experiment has few replicates, as is typically the case for prokaryotes. RESULTS: We extend five methods of gene set analysis from use on experiments with multiple replicates, for use on experiments with few replicates. We then use simulated and real data to compare these methods with each other and with the Fisher's exact test (FET) method. As a result of the simulation we find that a method named MAXMEAN-NR, maintains the nominal rate of false positive findings (type I error rate) while offering good statistical power and robustness to a variety of gene set distributions for set sizes of at least 10. Other methods (ABSSUM-NR or SUM-NR) are shown to be powerful for set sizes less than 10. Analysis of three sets of experimental data shows similar results. Furthermore, the MAXMEAN-NR method is shown to be able to detect biologically relevant sets as significant, when other methods (including FET) cannot. We also find that the popular GSEA-NR method performs poorly when compared to MAXMEAN-NR. CONCLUSION: MAXMEAN-NR is a method of gene set analysis for experiments with few replicates, as is common for prokaryotes. Results of simulation and real data analysis suggest that the MAXMEAN-NR method offers increased robustness and biological relevance of findings as compared to FET and other methods, while maintaining the nominal type I error rate. Nathan L. Tintle, Aaron A. Best, Matthew DeJongh, Dirk Van Bruggen, Fred Heffron, Steffen Porwollik, Ronald C. Taylor |
BMC Bioinform. | 5 |