ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2021
Systematic evaluation of transcriptomics-based deconvolution methods and references using thousands of clinical samples.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of Bulk and Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Analyses in Biomedicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- A guide to transcriptomic deconvolution in cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Research on plant knowledge graph reasoning based on dual-channel attention and topological perception.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- A robust workflow to benchmark deconvolution of multi-omic data.Genome biology · 2025Article
- The paradoxical prognostic effects of T-cell-derived circulating DNA in EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer involve the crosstalk between heme biosynthesis and immune microenvironment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An improved reference library and method for accurate cell-type deconvolution of bulk-tissue miRNA data.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Molecular group and correlation guided structural learning for multi-phenotype prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Evaluating performance and applications of sample-wise cell deconvolution methods on human brain transcriptomic data.Science advances · 2024Article
- Fourteen years of cellular deconvolution: methodology, applications, technical evaluation and outstanding challenges.Nucleic acids research · 2024Review
- Transcriptomic profiling of peripheral blood cells in HPV-associated carcinoma patients receiving combined valproic acid and avelumab.Molecular oncology · 2024Article
- Frequencies of 4 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes potently predict survival in glioblastoma, an immune desert.Neuro-oncology · 2024Article
- Challenges and perspectives in computational deconvolution of genomics data.Nature methods · 2024Review
- CATD: a reproducible pipeline for selecting cell-type deconvolution methods across tissues.Bioinformatics advances · 2024Article
- Rigorous benchmarking of T-cell receptor repertoire profiling methods for cancer RNA sequencing.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Evaluating performance and applications of sample-wise cell deconvolution methods on human brain transcriptomic data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Proteome deconvolution of liver biopsies reveals hepatic cell composition as an important marker of fibrosis.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Robust and accurate estimation of cellular fraction from tissue omics data via ensemble deconvolution.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Integrated analysis of an in vivo model of intra-nasal exposure to instilled air pollutants reveals cell-type specific responses in the placenta.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Deconvolution of a Large Cohort of Placental Microarray Data Reveals Clinically Distinct Subtypes of Preeclampsia.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Estimating cell type composition of blood and tissue samples is a biological challenge relevant in both laboratory studies and clinical care. In recent years, a number of computational tools have been developed to estimate cell type abundance using gene expression data. Although these tools use a variety of approaches, they all leverage expression profiles from purified cell types to evaluate the cell type composition within samples. In this study, we compare 12 cell type quantification tools and evaluate their performance while using each of 10 separate reference profiles. Specifically, we have run each tool on over 4000 samples with known cell type proportions, spanning both immune and stromal cell types. A total of 12 of these represent in vitro synthetic mixtures and 300 represent in silico synthetic mixtures prepared using single-cell data. A final 3728 clinical samples have been collected from the Framingham cohort, for which cell populations have been quantified using electrical impedance cell counting. When tools are applied to the Framingham dataset, the tool Estimating the Proportions of Immune and Cancer cells (EPIC) produces the highest correlation, whereas Gene Expression Deconvolution Interactive Tool (GEDIT) produces the lowest error. The best tool for other datasets is varied, but CIBERSORT and GEDIT most consistently produce accurate results. We find that optimal reference depends on the tool used, and report suggested references to be used with each tool. Most tools return results within minutes, but on large datasets runtimes for CIBERSORT can exceed hours or even days. We conclude that deconvolution methods are capable of returning high-quality results, but that proper reference selection is critical.
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.