ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018
A nonparametric significance test for sampled networks.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2018. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantum computing-assisted validation of a conserved macrophage suppression module shared by ASFV and PEDV.Genes & genomics · 2026Article
- The doxorubicin-induced cell motility network is under the control of the ceramide-activated protein phosphatase 1 alpha.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2021Article
- Ceramide launches an acute anti-adhesion pro-migration cell signaling program in response to chemotherapy.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Our work is motivated by an interest in constructing a protein-protein interaction network that captures key features associated with Parkinson's disease. While there is an abundance of subnetwork construction methods available, it is often far from obvious which subnetwork is the most suitable starting point for further investigation. Results: We provide a method to assess whether a subnetwork constructed from a seed list (a list of nodes known to be important in the area of interest) differs significantly from a randomly generated subnetwork. The proposed method uses a Monte Carlo approach. As different seed lists can give rise to the same subnetwork, we control for redundancy by constructing a minimal seed list as the starting point for the significance test. The null model is based on random seed lists of the same length as a minimum seed list that generates the subnetwork; in this random seed list the nodes have (approximately) the same degree distribution as the nodes in the minimum seed list. We use this null model to select subnetworks which deviate significantly from random on an appropriate set of statistics and might capture useful information for a real world protein-protein interaction network. Availability and implementation: The software used in this paper are available for download at https://sites.google.com/site/elliottande/. The software is written in Python and uses the NetworkX library. Contact: ande.elliott@gmail.com or felix.reed-tsochas@sbs.ox.ac.uk. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.