Pitfalls in re-analysis of observational omics studies; a post-mortem of the human pathology atlas

Abstract

Uhlen et al. (Reports, 18 august 2017) published an open-access resource with cancer-specific marker genes that are prognostic for patient survival in seventeen different types of cancer. However, their data analysis workflow is prone to the accumulation of false positives. A more reliable workflow with flexible Cox proportional hazards models employed on the same data highlights three distinct problems with such large-scale, publicly available omics datasets from observational studies today; (i) re-analysis results can not necessarily be taken forward by others, highlighting a need to cross-check important analyses with high impact outcomes; (ii) current methods are not necessarily optimal for the re-analysis of such data, indicating an urgent need to develop more suitable methods; and (iii) the limited availability of potential confounders in public metadata renders it very difficult (if not impossible) to adequately prioritize clinically relevant genes, which should prompt an in-depth discussion on how such information could be made more readily available while respecting privacy and ethics concerns.