ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2022
GeneNetTools: tests for Gaussian graphical models with shrinkage.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing brain metabolic connectivity in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a novel graph theory-driven application ofSchizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Shrinkage estimation of gene interaction networks in single-cell RNA sequencing data.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationGaussian graphical models (GGMs) are network representations of random variables (as nodes) and their partial correlations (as edges). GGMs overcome the challenges of high-dimensional data analysis by using shrinkage methodologies. Therefore, they have become useful to reconstruct gene regulatory networks from gene-expression profiles. However, it is often ignored that the partial correlations are 'shrunk' and that they cannot be compared/assessed directly. Therefore, accurate (differential) network analyses need to account for the number of variables, the sample size, and also the shrinkage value, otherwise, the analysis and its biological interpretation would turn biased. To date, there are no appropriate methods to account for these factors and address these issues.
resultsWe derive the statistical properties of the partial correlation obtained with the Ledoit-Wolf shrinkage. Our result provides a toolbox for (differential) network analyses as (i) confidence intervals, (ii) a test for zero partial correlation (null-effects) and (iii) a test to compare partial correlations. Our novel (parametric) methods account for the number of variables, the sample size and the shrinkage values. Additionally, they are computationally fast, simple to implement and require only basic statistical knowledge. Our simulations show that the novel tests perform better than DiffNetFDR-a recently published alternative-in terms of the trade-off between true and false positives. The methods are demonstrated on synthetic data and two gene-expression datasets from Escherichia coli and Mus musculus. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The R package with the methods and the R script with the analysis are available in https://github.com/V-Bernal/GeneNetTools. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.