Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Feb 29.
Published in final edited form as: Biomark Med. 2015 Jul 30;9(8):751–761. doi: 10.2217/BMM.15.39

Figure 2. Scatter plot showing that total sample size in supporting studies did not predict the performance of biomarker candidates.

Figure 2

The performance values (y-axis) were derived by rescaling the differential expression p-values in Table 2 and using negative values for three of the miRNAs because their expression in tumor vs. normal was opposite from the direction expected (see statistics methods). The line is the best fit line from the Pearson correlation analysis, r is the correlation coefficient and p is the significance value of the correlation (1-tailed). Each miRNA biomarker was supported by two studies as determined by Guan et al. [2]. n = 27 miRNA biomarkers (two markers coincide at point 111, 1).