Talk:Significance analysis of microarrays

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
	This redirect is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Statistics Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Proposed move

Would anyone object to a move from SAM: Significance Analysis of Microarrays to simply Significance Analysis of Microarrays? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 10:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential False Discovery Rate Formula Error

The False Discovery rate is listed as: Median (90th Percentile) of # of falsely called genes/ Number of genes called significant. Just thought I should note that by definition the Median is the 50th Percentile (not the 90th). Thanks128.255.38.95 (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAM calculations unclear

The images Samcalc.jpg and RandS.jpg are very low quality and quite hard to read, additionally whoever added it has not explained it properly. s is described as being computed as a percentile based on alpha but nowhere in the article is there any mention of this alpha. This section should be rewritten. I am currently researching this method and if no one has any objections will find the time to improve it. 128.40.94.87 (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the figure quality issues and much of the prose is poor also. I've cut some sections significantly but there is still much work to be done to improve this article Jebus989 ^✰ 14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship

Who the hell wrote this article? It reads like an advertisement. Hwfr (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]