ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2023
Systematic benchmarking of statistical methods to assess differential expression of circular RNAs.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the impact of parental linear gene normalization on the performance of statistical models for circular RNA differential expression analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Improving calls of differentially transcribed enhancers and their upstream regulators.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Article
- Improving confidence of differential transcription calls in enhancers.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Comprehensive bioinformatics analysis of human cytomegalovirus pathway genes in pan-cancer.Human genomics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Circular RNAs (circRNAs) are covalently closed transcripts involved in critical regulatory axes, cancer pathways and disease mechanisms. CircRNA expression measured with RNA-seq has particular characteristics that might hamper the performance of standard biostatistical differential expression assessment methods (DEMs). We compared 38 DEM pipelines configured to fit circRNA expression data's statistical properties, including bulk RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) and metagenomics DEMs. The DEMs performed poorly on data sets of typical size. Widely used DEMs, such as DESeq2, edgeR and Limma-Voom, gave scarce results, unreliable predictions or even contravened the expected behaviour with some parameter configurations. Limma-Voom achieved the most consistent performance throughout different benchmark data sets and, as well as SAMseq, reasonably balanced false discovery rate (FDR) and recall rate. Interestingly, a few scRNA-seq DEMs obtained results comparable with the best-performing bulk RNA-seq tools. Almost all DEMs' performance improved when increasing the number of replicates. CircRNA expression studies require careful design, choice of DEM and DEM configuration. This analysis can guide scientists in selecting the appropriate tools to investigate circRNA differential expression with RNA-seq experiments.
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.