ReviewProteomics2015
Unlocking proteomic heterogeneity in complex diseases through visual analytics.
Review in Proteomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subtyping Social Determinants of Health in the "All of Us" Program: Network Analysis and Visualization Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The Pre-Adaptation of a Stroke-Specific Self-Management Program Among Older Adults.Journal of aging and health · 2023Article
- Subtyping Social Determinants of Health inmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- A Framework for Modeling and Interpreting Patient Subgroups Applied to Hospital Readmission: Visual Analytical Approach.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Methylation differences reveal heterogeneity in preterm pathophysiology: results from bipartite network analyses.Journal of perinatal medicine · 2018Review
- Enabling Comprehension of Patient Subgroups and Characteristics in Large Bipartite Networks: Implications for Precision Medicine.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite years of preclinical development, biological interventions designed to treat complex diseases such as asthma often fail in phase III clinical trials. These failures suggest that current methods to analyze biomedical data might be missing critical aspects of biological complexity such as the assumption that cases and controls come from homogeneous distributions. Here we discuss why and how methods from the rapidly evolving field of visual analytics can help translational teams (consisting of biologists, clinicians, and bioinformaticians) to address the challenge of modeling and inferring heterogeneity in the proteomic and phenotypic profiles of patients with complex diseases. Because a primary goal of visual analytics is to amplify the cognitive capacities of humans for detecting patterns in complex data, we begin with an overview of the cognitive foundations for the field of visual analytics. Next, we organize the primary ways in which a specific form of visual analytics called networks has been used to model and infer biological mechanisms, which help to identify the properties of networks that are particularly useful for the discovery and analysis of proteomic heterogeneity in complex diseases. We describe one such approach called subject-protein networks, and demonstrate its application on two proteomic datasets. This demonstration provides insights to help translational teams overcome theoretical, practical, and pedagogical hurdles for the widespread use of subject-protein networks for analyzing molecular heterogeneities, with the translational goal of designing biomarker-based clinical trials, and accelerating the development of personalized approaches to medicine.
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.