Why, it seems like only 12 years since we read Mistaken Identifiers: Gene name errors can be introduced inadvertently when using Excel in bioinformatics.
And can it really be 4 years since we reviewed the topic of gene name corruption in Gene name errors and Excel: lessons not learned?
Well, here we are again in 2016 with Gene name errors are widespread in the scientific literature. This study examined 35 175 supplementary Excel data files from 3 597 published articles. Simple yet clever, isn’t it. I bet you wish you’d thought of doing that. I do. The conclusion: about 20% of the articles have associated data files in which gene names have been corrupted by Excel.
What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn’t one today.
We tell you not to use Excel. You counter with a host of reasons why you have to use Excel. None of them are good reasons. I don’t know what else to say. Except to reiterate that probably 80% or more of the data analyst’s time is spent on data cleaning and a good proportion of the dirt arises from avoidable errors.
Let’s start by making one thing clear. Using coloured cells in Excel to encode different categories of data is wrong. Next time colleagues explain excitedly how “green equals normal and red = tumour”, you must explain that (1) they have sinned and (2) what they meant to do was add a column containing the words “normal” and “tumour”.
I almost hesitate to write this post but…we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. So in the interests of just getting the job done: here’s one way to deal with coloured cells in Excel, should someone send them your way.
June 23, 2004. BMC Bioinformatics publishes “Mistaken Identifiers: Gene name errors can be introduced inadvertently when using Excel in bioinformatics”. We roll our eyes. Do people really do that? Is it really worthy of publication? However, we admit that if it happens then it’s good that people know about it.
October 17, 2012. A colleague on our internal Yammer network writes:
Read the rest…