ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
A versatile information retrieval framework for evaluating profile strength and similarity.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Capturing cell heterogeneity in representations of cell populations for image-based profiling using contrastive learning.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In profiling assays, thousands of biological properties are measured across many samples, yielding biological discoveries by capturing the state of a cell population, often at the single-cell level. However, for profiling datasets, it has been challenging to evaluate the phenotypic activity of a sample and the phenotypic consistency among samples, due to profiles' high dimensionality, heterogeneous nature, and non-linear properties. Existing methods leave researchers uncertain where to draw boundaries between meaningful biological response and technical noise. Here, we developed a statistical framework that uses the well-established mean average precision (mAP) as a single, data-driven metric to bridge this gap. We validated the mAP framework against established metrics through simulations and real-world data applications, revealing its ability to capture subtle and meaningful biological differences in cell state. Specifically, we used mAP to assess both phenotypic activity for a given perturbation (or a sample) as well as consistency within groups of perturbations (or samples) across diverse high-dimensional datasets. We evaluated the framework on different profile types (image, protein, and mRNA profiles), perturbation types (CRISPR gene editing, gene overexpression, and small molecules), and profile resolutions (single-cell and bulk). Our open-source software allows this framework to be applied to identify interesting biological phenomena and promising therapeutics from large-scale profiling data.
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.