ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2024
Comprehensive Evaluation of Advanced Imputation Methods for Proteomic Data Acquired via the Label-Free Approach.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of Depression in Women With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease Using Routine Blood Tests: A Five-Year Longitudinal Analysis From the UK Biobank.Alpha psychiatry · 2026Article
- Plasma proteome profiling identifies novel biomarkers and predictors for schizophrenia.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Extreme phenotype-derived machine learning reveals susceptibility and resilience signatures for severe diabetic retinopathy.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- With or without a CaPlanta · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mass-spectrometry-based proteomics frequently utilizes label-free quantification strategies due to their cost-effectiveness, methodological simplicity, and capability to identify large numbers of proteins within a single analytical run. Despite these advantages, the prevalence of missing values (MV), which can impact up to 50% of the data matrix, poses a significant challenge by reducing the accuracy, reproducibility, and interpretability of the results. Consequently, effective handling of missing values is crucial for reliable quantitative analysis in proteomic studies. This study systematically evaluated the performance of selected imputation methods for addressing missing values in proteomic dataset. Two protein identification algorithms, FragPipe and MaxQuant, were employed to generate datasets, enabling an assessment of their influence on im-putation efficacy. Ten imputation methods, representing three methodological categories-single-value (LOD, ND, SampMin), local-similarity (kNN, LLS, RF), and global-similarity approaches (LSA, BPCA, PPCA, SVD)-were analyzed. The study also investigated the impact of data logarithmization on imputation performance. The evaluation process was conducted in two stages. First, performance metrics including normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were applied to datasets with artificially introduced missing values. The datasets were designed to mimic varying MV rates (10%, 25%, 50%) and proportions of values missing not at random (MNAR) (0%, 20%, 40%, 80%, 100%). This step enabled the assessment of data characteristics on the relative effectiveness of the imputation methods. Second, the imputation strategies were applied to real proteomic datasets containing natural missing values, focusing on the true-positive (TP) classification of proteins to evaluate their practical utility. The findings highlight that local-similarity-based methods, particularly random forest (RF) and local least-squares (LLS), consistently exhibit robust performance across varying MV scenarios. Furthermore, data logarithmization significantly enhances the effectiveness of global-similarity methods, suggesting it as a beneficial preprocessing step prior to imputation. The study underscores the importance of tailoring imputation strategies to the specific characteristics of the data to maximize the reliability of label-free quantitative proteomics. Interestingly, while the choice of protein identification algorithm (FragPipe vs. MaxQuant) had minimal influence on the overall imputation error, differences in the number of proteins classified as true positives revealed more nuanced effects, emphasizing the interplay between imputation strategies and downstream analysis outcomes. These findings provide a comprehensive framework for improving the accuracy and reproducibility of proteomic analyses through an informed selection of imputation approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.