Search

Linked data are increasingly being used for epidemiological research, to enhance primary research, and in planning, monitoring and evaluating public policy and services. Linkage error (missed links between records that relate to the same person or false links between unrelated records) can manifest in many ways: as missing data, measurement error and misclassification, unrepresentative sampling, or as a special combination of these that is specific to analysis of linked data: the merging and splitting of people that can occur when two hospital admission records are counted as one person admitted twice if linked and two people admitted once if not. Through these mechanisms, linkage error can ultimately lead to information bias and selection bias; so identifying relevant mechanisms is key in quantitative bias analysis. In this article we introduce five key concepts and a study classification system for identifying which mechanisms are relevant to any given analysis. We provide examples and discuss options for estimating parameters for bias analysis. This conceptual framework provides the 'links' between linkage error, information bias and selection bias, and lays the groundwork for quantitative bias analysis for linkage error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivation: It is commonly assumed in pattern recognition that cross-validation error estimation is ‘almost unbiased’ as long as the number of folds is not too small. While this is true for random sampling, it is not true with separate sampling, where the populations are independently sampled, which is a common situation in bioinformatics.Results: We demonstrate, via analytical and numerical methods, that classical cross-validation can have strong bias under separate sampling, depending on the difference between the sampling ratios and the true population probabilities. We propose a new separate-sampling cross-validation error estimator, and prove that it satisfies an ‘almost unbiased’ theorem similar to that of random-sampling cross-validation. We present two case studies with previously published data, which show that the results can change drastically if the correct form of cross-validation is used.Availability and implementation: The source code in C++, along with the Supplementary Materials, is available at: http://gsp.tamu.edu/Publications/supplementary/zollanvari13/.Contact: ulisses@ece.tamu.eduSupplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Data errors, including sample swapping and mis-labeling, are inevitable in the process of large-scale omics data generation. Data errors need to be identified and corrected before integrative data analyses where different types of data are merged on the basis of the annotated labels. Data with labeling errors dampen true biological signals. More importantly, data analysis with sample errors could lead to wrong scientific conclusions. We developed a robust probabilistic multi-omics data matching procedure, proMODMatcher, to curate data and identify and correct data annotation and errors in large databases. Results Application to simulated datasets suggests that proMODMatcher achieved robust statistical power even when the number of cis -associations was small and/or the number of samples was large. Application of our proMODMatcher to multi-omics datasets in The Cancer Genome Atlas and International Cancer Genome Consortium identified sample errors in multiple cancer datasets. Our procedure was not only able to identify sample-labeling errors but also to unambiguously identify the source of the errors. Our results demonstrate that these errors should be identified and corrected before integrative analysis. Conclusions Our results indicate that sample-labeling errors were common in large multi-omics datasets. These errors should be corrected before integrative analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]