Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31165139›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019

Gene set enrichment for reproducible science: comparison of CERNO and eight other algorithms.

Joanna Zyla, Michal Marczyk, Teresa Domaszewska, Stefan H E Kaufmann, Joanna Polanska, January Weiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Innate-like Gene Expression of Lung-Resident Memory CD8American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021
    Trial
  5. Vitamin DJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2021
    Trial
  6. Gene-Specific Endothelial Programs Drive AVM Pathogenesis inArteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. CD8Nature · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A practical guide to functional enrichment analysis.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 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

6 authors.

Joanna ZylaData Mining Group, Faculty of Automatic Control, Electronic and Computer Science, Institute of Automatic Control, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland.
Michal MarczykData Mining Group, Faculty of Automatic Control, Electronic and Computer Science, Institute of Automatic Control, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland.
Teresa DomaszewskaDepartment of Immunology, Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany.
Stefan H E KaufmannDepartment of Immunology, Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany.
Joanna PolanskaData Mining Group, Faculty of Automatic Control, Electronic and Computer Science, Institute of Automatic Control, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland.
January WeinerDepartment of Immunology, Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationAnalysis of gene set (GS) enrichment is an essential part of functional omics studies. Here, we complement the established evaluation metrics of GS enrichment algorithms with a novel approach to assess the practical reproducibility of scientific results obtained from GS enrichment tests when applied to related data from different studies.

resultsWe evaluated eight established and one novel algorithm for reproducibility, sensitivity, prioritization, false positive rate and computational time. In addition to eight established algorithms, we also included Coincident Extreme Ranks in Numerical Observations (CERNO), a flexible and fast algorithm based on modified Fisher P-value integration. Using real-world datasets, we demonstrate that CERNO is robust to ranking metrics, as well as sample and GS size. CERNO had the highest reproducibility while remaining sensitive, specific and fast. In the overall ranking Pathway Analysis with Down-weighting of Overlapping Genes, CERNO and over-representation analysis performed best, while CERNO and GeneSetTest scored high in terms of reproducibility. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: tmod package implementing the CERNO algorithm is available from CRAN (cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tmod/index.html) and an online implementation can be found at http://tmod.online/. The datasets analyzed in this study are widely available in the KEGGdzPathwaysGEO, KEGGandMetacoreDzPathwaysGEO R package and GEO repository. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSoftwareReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID31165139
PMCPMC6954644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.