Matches in UGent Biblio for { <https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/3190986#aggregation> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 38 of
38
with 100 items per page.
- aggregation classification "A1".
- aggregation creator B674470.
- aggregation creator B674471.
- aggregation creator B674472.
- aggregation creator B674473.
- aggregation creator B674474.
- aggregation creator B674475.
- aggregation creator person.
- aggregation date "2002".
- aggregation format "application/pdf".
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.bibtex.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.csv.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.dc.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.didl.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.doc.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.json.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.mets.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.mods.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.rdf.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.ris.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.txt.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.xls.
- aggregation hasFormat 3190986.yaml.
- aggregation isPartOf urn:issn:0218-3390.
- aggregation language "eng".
- aggregation rights "I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher".
- aggregation subject "Biology and Life Sciences".
- aggregation title "Comparison of different methodologies to identify differentially expressed genes in two-sample cDNA microarrays".
- aggregation abstract "This review compares different methods to identify differentially expressed genes in two-sample cDNA arrays. A two-sample experiment is a commonly used design to compare relative mRNA abundance between two different samples. This simple design is customarily used by biologists as a first screening before relying on more complex designs. Statistical techniques are quite well developed for such simple designs. For the identification of differentially expressed genes, four methods were described and compared: a fold test, a t-test (Long et al., 2001), SAM (Tusher et al., 2001) and an ANOVA-based bootstrap method (Kerr and Churchill, 2001). Mutual comparison of these methods clearly illustrates each method's advantages and pitfalls. Our analyses showed that the most reliable predictions are made by the combined use of different methods, each of which is based on a different statistic. The ANOVA-based bootstap method used in this study performed rather poorly in identifying differentially expressed genes.".
- aggregation authorList BK1036104.
- aggregation endPage "430".
- aggregation issue "4".
- aggregation startPage "409".
- aggregation volume "10".
- aggregation aggregates 3190995.
- aggregation isDescribedBy 3190986.
- aggregation similarTo S0218339002000731.
- aggregation similarTo LU-3190986.