Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32695141›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2020

Gene Set Analysis: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Research.

Farhad Maleki, Katie Ovens, Daniel J Hogan, Anthony J Kusalik

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 151 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
151citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

151 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A Cross-Species and Sex-Specific Meta-Analysis of Transcriptomic Studies of Pulmonary Hypertension.American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Gain-of-function mutation inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

91 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

4 authors.

Farhad MalekiDepartment of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Katie OvensDepartment of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Daniel J HoganDepartment of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Anthony J KusalikDepartment of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene set analysis methods are widely used to provide insight into high-throughput gene expression data. There are many gene set analysis methods available. These methods rely on various assumptions and have different requirements, strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, we classify gene set analysis methods based on their components, describe the underlying requirements and assumptions for each class, and provide directions for future research in developing and evaluating gene set analysis methods.

Indexed as

gene expressiongene set analysisgene set databasegene set enrichmentsensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID32695141
PMCPMC7339292

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.