Robust test method for time-course microarray experiments.

BACKGROUND: In a time-course microarray experiment, the expression level for each gene is observed across a number of time-points in order to characterize the temporal trajectories of the gene-expression profiles. For many of these experiments, the scientific aim is the identification of genes for which the trajectories depend on an experimental or phenotypic factor. There is an extensive recent body of literature on statistical methodology for addressing this analytical problem. Most of the existing methods are based on estimating the time-course trajectories using parametric or non-parametric mean regression methods. The sensitivity of these regression methods to outliers, an issue that is well documented in the statistical literature, should be of concern when analyzing microarray data. RESULTS: In this paper, we propose a robust testing method for identifying genes whose expression time profiles depend on a factor. Furthermore, we propose a multiple testing procedure to adjust for multiplicity. CONCLUSIONS: Through an extensive simulation study, we will illustrate the performance of our method. Finally, we will report the results from applying our method to a case study and discussing potential extensions.

CD4 enumeration technologies: a systematic review of test performance for determining eligibility for antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of CD4+ T-lymphocytes (CD4) is a crucial parameter in the management of HIV patients, particularly in determining eligibility to initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART). A number of technologies exist for CD4 enumeration, with considerable variation in cost, complexity, and operational requirements. We conducted a systematic review of the performance of technologies for CD4 enumeration. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE using a pre-defined search strategy. Data on test accuracy and precision included bias and limits of agreement with a reference standard, and misclassification probabilities around CD4 thresholds of 200 and 350 cells/μl over a clinically relevant range. The secondary outcome measure was test imprecision, expressed as % coefficient of variation. Thirty-two studies evaluating 15 CD4 technologies were included, of which less than half presented data on bias and misclassification compared to the same reference technology. At CD4 counts <350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -35.2 to +13.1 cells/μl while at counts >350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -70.7 to +47 cells/μl, compared to the BD FACSCount as a reference technology. Misclassification around the threshold of 350 cells/μl ranged from 1-29% for upward classification, resulting in under-treatment, and 7-68% for downward classification resulting in overtreatment. Less than half of these studies reported within laboratory precision or reproducibility of the CD4 values obtained. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of bias and percent misclassification around treatment thresholds were reported on the CD4 enumeration technologies included in this review, with few studies reporting assay precision. The lack of standardised methodology on test evaluation, including the use of different reference standards, is a barrier to assessing relative assay performance and could hinder the introduction of new point-of-care assays in countries where they are most needed.