1 Aittokallio, T. Dealing with missing values in large-scale studies: microarray data imputation and beyond. Briefings in Bioinformatics11, 253-264, doi:10.1093/bib/bbp059 (2009).
2 Goh, W. W. B., Wang, W. & Wong, L. Why batch effects matter in omics data, and how to avoid them. Trends in biotechnology35, 498-507 (2017).
3 Luo, J. et al. A comparison of batch effect removal methods for enhancement of prediction performance using MAQC-II microarray gene expression data. The pharmacogenomics journal10, 278-291 (2010).
4 Kupfer, P. et al. Batch correction of microarray data substantially improves the identification of genes differentially expressed in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. BMC medical genomics5, 23 (2012).
5 Konstantinopoulos, P. A. et al. Integrated analysis of multiple microarray datasets identifies a reproducible survival predictor in ovarian cancer. PloS one6, e18202 (2011).
6 Chen, C. et al. Removing batch effects in analysis of expression microarray data: an evaluation of six batch adjustment methods. PloS one6, e17238 (2011).
7 Webb-Robertson, B.-J. M. et al. Review, evaluation, and discussion of the challenges of missing value imputation for mass spectrometry-based label-free global proteomics. Journal of proteome research14, 1993-2001 (2015).
8 Belorkar, A. & Wong, L. GFS: fuzzy preprocessing for effective gene expression analysis. BMC bioinformatics17, 540 (2016).
9 Zhao, Y., Wong, L. & Goh, W. W. B. How to do quantile normalization correctly for gene expression data analyses. Scientific reports10, 1-11 (2020).
10 Liu, M. & Dongre, A. Proper imputation of missing values in proteomics datasets for differential expression analysis. Briefings in Bioinformatics, doi:10.1093/bib/bbaa112 (2020).
11 Johnson, W. E., Li, C. & Rabinovic, A. Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics8, 118-127, doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxj037 (2006).
12 Leek, J. T. & Storey, J. D. Capturing heterogeneity in gene expression studies by surrogate variable analysis. PLoS Genet3, e161 (2007).
13 Oytam, Y. et al. Risk-conscious correction of batch effects: maximising information extraction from high-throughput genomic datasets. BMC bioinformatics17, 332 (2016).
14 Nygaard, V., Rødland, E. A. & Hovig, E. Methods that remove batch effects while retaining group differences may lead to exaggerated confidence in downstream analyses. Biostatistics17, 29-39, doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxv027 (2015).
15 Reese, S. E. et al. A new statistic for identifying batch effects in high-throughput genomic data that uses guided principal component analysis. Bioinformatics29, 2877-2883, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt480 (2013).
16 Zhou, L., Sue, A. C.-H. & Goh, W. W. B. Examining the practical limits of batch effect-correction algorithms: When should you care about batch effects? Journal of Genetics and Genomics46, 433-443 (2019).
17 Goh, W. W. B. & Wong, L. Advancing clinical proteomics via analysis based on biological complexes: A tale of five paradigms. Journal of proteome research15, 3167-3179 (2016).
18 Iwamoto, T. et al. Gene pathways associated with prognosis and chemotherapy sensitivity in molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute103, 264-272 (2011).
19 Sullivan, G. M. & Feinn, R. Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of graduate medical education4, 279-282 (2012).