ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018
Improving network inference algorithms using resampling methods.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal network analysis in systems biology: concepts, inference, and validation.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Unraveling patient heterogeneity in complex diseases through individualized co-expression networks: a perspective.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Tutorial: best practices and considerations for mass-spectrometry-based protein biomarker discovery and validation.Nature protocols · 2021Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRelatively small changes to gene expression data dramatically affect co-expression networks inferred from that data which, in turn, can significantly alter the subsequent biological interpretation. This error propagation is an underappreciated problem that, while hinted at in the literature, has not yet been thoroughly explored. Resampling methods (e.g. bootstrap aggregation, random subspace method) are hypothesized to alleviate variability in network inference methods by minimizing outlier effects and distilling persistent associations in the data. But the efficacy of the approach assumes the generalization from statistical theory holds true in biological network inference applications.
resultsWe evaluated the effect of bootstrap aggregation on inferred networks using commonly applied network inference methods in terms of stability, or resilience to perturbations in the underlying expression data, a metric for accuracy, and functional enrichment of edge interactions.
conclusionBootstrap aggregation results in improved stability and, depending on the size of the input dataset, a marginal improvement to accuracy assessed by each method's ability to link genes in the same functional pathway.
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.