Table 4 Performances of our proposed meta-analysis method (BACON adjusted Weighted Z) and the other methods in comparison under reduced differential expressions between subject groups and varying experiment sample sizes
From: Robust meta-analysis for large-scale genomic experiments based on an empirical approach
Setting | Method | Performance assessment measure | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sensitivity | Specificity | FDR | FNR | ||
1 | Fisher | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
EAMA | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.09 | 0.00 | |
BACON adjusted Fisher | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.05 | 0.00 | |
weighted Z | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.05 | 0.00 | |
EB adjusted weighted Z | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.06 | 0.00 | |
BACON adjusted weighted Z | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | |
2 | Fisher | 0.44 | 0.13 | 0.95 | 0.34 |
EAMA | 0.40 | 1.00 | 0.003 | 0.34 | |
BACON adjusted Fisher | 0.40 | 1.00 | 0.02 | 0.06 | |
weighted Z | 0.55 | 0.01 | 0.94 | 0.84 | |
EB adjusted weighted Z | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | |
BACON adjusted weighted Z | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | |
3 | Fisher | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
EAMA | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | |
BACON adjusted Fisher | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | |
weighted Z | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | |
EB adjusted weighted Z | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 | |
BACON adjusted weighted Z | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | |