ArticleBiomolecules2022
Comparing Bayesian-Based Reconstruction Strategies in Topology-Based Pathway Enrichment Analysis.
Article in Biomolecules, 2022. 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.
- Therapeutic potential of astrocyte transdifferentiated neurons.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Minimum uncertainty as Bayesian network model selection principle.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- A mathematical model for strigolactone biosynthesis in plants.Frontiers in plant science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of high-throughput omics technologies has enabled the quantification of vast amounts of genes and gene products in the whole genome. Pathway enrichment analysis (PEA) provides an intuitive solution for extracting biological insights from massive amounts of data. Topology-based pathway analysis (TPA) represents the latest generation of PEA methods, which exploit pathway topology in addition to lists of differentially expressed genes and their expression profiles. A subset of these TPA methods, such as BPA, BNrich, and PROPS, reconstruct pathway structures by training Bayesian networks (BNs) from canonical biological pathways, providing superior representations that explain causal relationships between genes. However, these methods have never been compared for their differences in the PEA and their different topology reconstruction strategies. In this study, we aim to compare the BN reconstruction strategies of the BPA, BNrich, PROPS, Clipper, and Ensemble methods and their PEA and performance on tumor and non-tumor classification based on gene expression data. Our results indicate that they performed equally well in distinguishing tumor and non-tumor samples (AUC > 0.95) yet with a varying ranking of pathways, which can be attributed to the different BN structures resulting from the different cyclic structure removal strategies. This can be clearly seen from the reconstructed JAK-STAT networks by different strategies. In a nutshell, BNrich, which relies on expert intervention to remove loops and cyclic structures, produces BNs that best fit the biological facts. The plausibility of the Clipper strategy can also be partially explained by intuitive biological rules and theorems. Our results may offer an informed reference for the proper method for a given data analysis task.
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.