Importance of randomization in microarray experimental designs with Illumina platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurements of gene expression from microarray experiments are highly dependent on experimental design. Systematic noise can be introduced into the data at numerous steps. On Illumina BeadChips, multiple samples are assayed in an ordered series of arrays. Two experiments were performed using the same samples but different hybridization designs. An experiment confounding genotype with BeadChip and treatment with array position was compared to another experiment in which these factors were randomized to BeadChip and array position. An ordinal effect of array position on intensity values was observed in both experiments. We demonstrate that there is increased rate of false-positive results in the confounded design and that attempts to correct for confounded effects by statistical modeling reduce power of detection for true differential expression. Simple analysis models without post hoc corrections provide the best results possible for a given experimental design. Normalization improved differential expression testing in both experiments but randomization was the most important factor for establishing accurate results. We conclude that lack of randomization cannot be corrected by normalization or by analytical methods. Proper randomization is essential for successful microarray experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.165 | 0.352 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".