Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20368141›Full record

ArticleHuman genomics2010

An introduction to effective use of enrichment analysis software.

Hannah Tipney, Lawrence Hunter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human genomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. RNA-Sequencing Reveals Two Subgroups of Eccrine Porocarcinomas and Poromas.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Transcriptomic Analysis ofBrain sciences · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hannah TipneyCenter for Computational Pharmacology, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Lawrence Hunter

Funding

Technology Development for a MolBio Knowledge-BaseR01LM008111 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI HUNTER, LAWRENCE E · 2004 to 2021
$9.7M
Bio Text NLPR01LM009254 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI HUNTER, LAWRENCE E · 2006 to 2018
$5.9M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM008111NLM NIH HHS R01 LM008111-05NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009254NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009254-04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an explosion in the range of software available for annotation enrichment analysis. Three classes of enrichment algorithms and their associated software implementations are introduced here. Their limitations and caveats are discussed, and direction for tool selection is given.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologySoftwareGenesInternet

Identifiers

PMID20368141
PMCPMC3525973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.