Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Evaluation of statistical approaches for association testing in noisy drug screening data

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2104.14036 v2 pith:S32I3AOP submitted 2021-04-28 stat.AP

classification stat.AP
keywords concordanceindexdatastatisticalbiologicalnoiseassociationscoefficients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

dentifying associations among biological variables is a major challenge in modern quantitative biological research, particularly given the systemic and statistical noise endemic to biological systems. Drug sensitivity data has proven to be a particularly challenging field for identifying associations to inform patient treatment. To address this, we introduce two semi-parametric variations on the commonly used concordance index: the robust concordance index and the kernelized concordance index (rCI, kCI), which incorporate measurements about the noise distribution from the data. We demonstrate that common statistical tests applied to the concordance index and its variations fail to control for false positives, and introduce efficient implementations to compute p-values using adaptive permutation testing. We then evaluate the statistical power of these coefficients under simulation and compare with Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Finally, we evaluate the various statistics in matching drugs across pharmacogenomic datasets. We observe that the rCI and kCI are better powered than the concordance index in simulation and show some improvement on real data. Surprisingly, we observe that the Pearson correlation was the most robust to measurement noise among the different metrics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools