MDQC: a new quality assessment method for microarrays based on quality control reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The process of producing microarray data involves multiple steps, some of which may suffer from technical problems and seriously damage the quality of the data. Thus, it is essential to identify those arrays with low quality. This article addresses two questions: (1) how to assess the quality of a microarray dataset using the measures provided in quality control (QC) reports; (2) how to identify possible sources of the quality problems. RESULTS: We propose a novel multivariate approach to evaluate the quality of an array that examines the 'Mahalanobis distance' of its quality attributes from those of other arrays. Thus, we call it Mahalanobis Distance Quality Control (MDQC) and examine different approaches of this method. MDQC flags problematic arrays based on the idea of outlier detection, i.e. it flags those arrays whose quality attributes jointly depart from those of the bulk of the data. Using two case studies, we show that a multivariate analysis gives substantially richer information than analyzing each parameter of the QC report in isolation. Moreover, once the QC report is produced, our quality assessment method is computationally inexpensive and the results can be easily visualized and interpreted. Finally, we show that computing these distances on subsets of the quality measures in the report may increase the method's ability to detect unusual arrays and helps to identify possible reasons of the quality problems. AVAILABILITY: The library to implement MDQC will soon be available from Bioconductor.
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 | 0.025 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".