Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20805835›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2010

Advantages and limitations of current network inference methods.

Riet De Smet, Kathleen Marchal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 225 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
225citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

225 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 526 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Causal connectivity measures for pulse-output network reconstruction: Analysis and applications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

165 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Riet De SmetCentre of Microbial and Plant Genetics/Bioinformatics, Department of Microbial and Molecular Systems, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Kathleen Marchal
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Network inference, which is the reconstruction of biological networks from high-throughput data, can provide valuable information about the regulation of gene expression in cells. However, it is an underdetermined problem, as the number of interactions that can be inferred exceeds the number of independent measurements. Different state-of-the-art tools for network inference use specific assumptions and simplifications to deal with underdetermination, and these influence the inferences. The outcome of network inference therefore varies between tools and can be highly complementary. Here we categorize the available tools according to the strategies that they use to deal with the problem of underdetermination. Such categorization allows an insight into why a certain tool is more appropriate for the specific research question or data set at hand.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticBacteriaGene Expression RegulationGene Regulatory Networks

Identifiers

PMID20805835
OpenAlexW2105129830

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.