ReviewCancer informatics2014
Comparative study of computational methods for reconstructing genetic networks of cancer-related pathways.
Review in Cancer informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- MetaNetwork Enhances Biological Insights from Quantitative Proteomics Differences by Combining Clustering and Enrichment Analyses.Journal of proteome research · 2022Article
- Identifying functional cancer-specific miRNA-mRNA interactions in testicular germ cell tumor.Journal of theoretical biology · 2016Article
- A comparative evaluation of data-merging and meta-analysis methods for reconstructing gene-gene interactions.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- Joint Estimation of Precision Matrices in Heterogeneous Populations.Electronic journal of statistics · 2016Article
- Function of cancer associated genes revealed by modern univariate and multivariate association tests.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Network reconstruction is an important yet challenging task in systems biology. While many methods have been recently proposed for reconstructing biological networks from diverse data types, properties of estimated networks and differences between reconstruction methods are not well understood. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive empirical evaluation of seven existing network reconstruction methods, by comparing the estimated networks with different sparsity levels for both normal and tumor samples. The results suggest substantial heterogeneity in networks reconstructed using different reconstruction methods. Our findings also provide evidence for significant differences between networks of normal and tumor samples, even after accounting for the considerable variability in structures of networks estimated using different reconstruction methods. These differences can offer new insight into changes in mechanisms of genetic interaction associated with cancer initiation and progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.