Views provided by UsageCounts
pmid: 34617014
pmc: PMC8489595
Abstract More than 110 000 publications have used microarrays to decipher phenotype-associated genes, clinical biomarkers and gene functions. Microarrays rely on digital assaying the fluorescence signals of arrays. In this study, we retrospectively constructed raw images for 37 724 published microarray data, and developed deep learning algorithms to automatically detect systematic defects. We report that an alarming amount of 26.73% of the microarray-based studies are affected by serious imaging defects. By literature mining, we found that publications associated with these affected microarrays have reported disproportionately more biological discoveries on the genes in the contaminated areas compared to other genes. 28.82% of the gene-level conclusions reported in these publications were based on measurements falling into the contaminated area, indicating severe, systematic problems caused by such contaminations. We provided the identified published, problematic datasets, affected genes and the imputed arrays as well as software tools for scanning such contamination that will become essential to future studies to scrutinize and critically analyze microarray data.
Standard Article, microarray
Standard Article, microarray
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 6 |

Views provided by UsageCounts