Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23594911›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2013

Computational solutions for omics data.

Bonnie Berger, Jian Peng, Mona Singh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed
–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

132 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient stratification reveals the molecular basis of disease co-occurrences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Uncertainty-aware dynamic integration for multi-omics classification of tumors.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Multi-scale models of whole cells: progress and challenges.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review

72 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

3 authors.

Bonnie BergerDepartment of Mathematics and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA. bab@mit.edu
Jian Peng
Mona Singh

Funding

Structure-Based Prediction of the InteractomeR01GM081871 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI BERGER, BONNIE · 2008 to 2020
$4.3M
Predicting and analyzing variation in cellular interactomesR01GM076275 · NIGMS · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI SINGH, MONA · 2006 to 2022
$4.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM076275NIGMS NIH HHS GM081871NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM076275NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM081871
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput experimental technologies are generating increasingly massive and complex genomic data sets. The sheer enormity and heterogeneity of these data threaten to make the arising problems computationally infeasible. Fortunately, powerful algorithmic techniques lead to software that can answer important biomedical questions in practice. In this Review, we sample the algorithmic landscape, focusing on state-of-the-art techniques, the understanding of which will aid the bench biologist in analysing omics data. We spotlight specific examples that have facilitated and enriched analyses of sequence, transcriptomic and network data sets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticData MiningGene Expression ProfilingGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansSequence Analysis, DNASoftware

Identifiers

PMID23594911
PMCPMC3966295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.