Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32144346›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

NBIA: a network-based integrative analysis framework - applied to pathway analysis.

Tin Nguyen, Adib Shafi, Tuan-Minh Nguyen, A Grant Schissler, Sorin Draghici

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

5 authors.

Tin NguyenDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, 89557, Nevada, United States. tinn@unr.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8001-9470
Adib ShafiWayne State University, Department of Computer Science, Detroit, 48202, Michigan, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2066-6163
Tuan-Minh NguyenWayne State University, Department of Computer Science, Detroit, 48202, Michigan, United States.
A Grant SchisslerDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Nevada, Reno, 89557, Nevada, United States.
Sorin DraghiciWayne State University, Department of Computer Science, Detroit, 48202, Michigan, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0786-8377

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the explosion of high-throughput data, effective integrative analyses are needed to decipher the knowledge accumulated in biological databases. Existing meta-analysis approaches in systems biology often focus on hypothesis testing and neglect real expression changes, i.e. effect sizes, across independent studies. In addition, most integrative tools completely ignore the topological order of gene regulatory networks that hold key characteristics in understanding biological processes. Here we introduce a novel meta-analysis framework, Network-Based Integrative Analysis (NBIA), that transforms the challenging meta-analysis problem into a set of standard pathway analysis problems that have been solved efficiently. NBIA utilizes techniques from classical and modern meta-analysis, as well as a network-based analysis, in order to identify patterns of genes and networks that are consistently impacted across multiple studies. We assess the performance of NBIA by comparing it with nine meta-analysis approaches: Impact Analysis, GSA, and GSEA combined with classical meta-analysis methods (Fisher's and the additive method), plus the three MetaPath approaches that employ multiple datasets. The 10 approaches have been tested on 1,737 samples from 27 expression datasets related to Alzheimer's disease, acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and influenza. For all of the three diseases, NBIA consistently identifies biological pathways relevant to the underlying diseases while the other 9 methods fail to capture the key phenomena. The identified AML signature is also validated on a completely independent cohort of 167 AML patients. In this independent cohort, the proposed signature identifies two groups of patients that have significantly different survival profiles (Cox p-value 2 × 10

Identifiers

PMID32144346
PMCPMC7060280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.