The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2017 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) 2017
DOI: 10.1109/bibm.2017.8217888
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of location-scale and matrix factorization batch effect removal methods on gene expression datasets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, instead of using QCs, well-known methods are introduced from other omics areas, particularly genomics, that can remove batch effects from subject samples directly. 11 They can be classified into two main approaches: location-scale methods and matrix factorization methods. Location-scale methods assume a model for data distribution within a batch, and adjust the data within each batch to fit this model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, instead of using QCs, well-known methods are introduced from other omics areas, particularly genomics, that can remove batch effects from subject samples directly. 11 They can be classified into two main approaches: location-scale methods and matrix factorization methods. Location-scale methods assume a model for data distribution within a batch, and adjust the data within each batch to fit this model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overfitting results from the small number of QCs for the training models and cannot be avoided. Therefore, instead of using QCs, well-known methods are introduced from other omics areas, particularly genomics, that can remove batch effects from subject samples directly . They can be classified into two main approaches: location-scale methods and matrix factorization methods.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%