Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38713133›Full record

ArticleCurrent protocols2024

RCPA: An Open-Source R Package for Data Processing, Differential Analysis, Consensus Pathway Analysis, and Visualization.

Hung Nguyen, Ha Nguyen, Zeynab Maghsoudi, Bang Tran, Sorin Draghici, Tin Nguyen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. CSIE: cancer subtyping via inference and ensemble.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Frontiers in genetics · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hung NguyenDepartment of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Ha NguyenDepartment of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Zeynab MaghsoudiDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.
Bang TranCollege of Engineering and Computer Science, California State University, Sacramento, California.
Sorin DraghiciDepartment of Computer Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
Tin NguyenDepartment of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8001-9470

Funding

A web-based platform for robust single-cell analysis, bulk data deconvolution and system-level analysisR44GM152152 · NIGMS · ADVAITA CORPORATION · PI IOSEF, CRISTIANA · 2023 to 2024
$1.8M
Personalization of graphical models using multi-omics data for subtype discovery and prognosisU01CA274573 · NCI · AUBURN UNIVERSITY AT AUBURN · PI LUU, HUNG N, NGUYEN, TIN C · 2023 to 2025
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA274573NIGMS NIH HHS R44 GM152152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying impacted pathways is important because it provides insights into the biology underlying conditions beyond the detection of differentially expressed genes. Because of the importance of such analysis, more than 100 pathway analysis methods have been developed thus far. Despite the availability of many methods, it is challenging for biomedical researchers to learn and properly perform pathway analysis. First, the sheer number of methods makes it challenging to learn and choose the correct method for a given experiment. Second, computational methods require users to be savvy with coding syntax, and comfortable with command-line environments, areas that are unfamiliar to most life scientists. Third, as learning tools and computational methods are typically implemented only for a few species (i.e., human and some model organisms), it is difficult to perform pathway analysis on other species that are not included in many of the current pathway analysis tools. Finally, existing pathway tools do not allow researchers to combine, compare, and contrast the results of different methods and experiments for both hypothesis testing and analysis purposes. To address these challenges, we developed an open-source R package for Consensus Pathway Analysis (RCPA) that allows researchers to conveniently: (1) download and process data from NCBI GEO; (2) perform differential analysis using established techniques developed for both microarray and sequencing data; (3) perform both gene set enrichment, as well as topology-based pathway analysis using different methods that seek to answer different research hypotheses; (4) combine methods and datasets to find consensus results; and (5) visualize analysis results and explore significantly impacted pathways across multiple analyses. This protocol provides many example code snippets with detailed explanations and supports the analysis of more than 1000 species, two pathway databases, three differential analysis techniques, eight pathway analysis tools, six meta-analysis methods, and two consensus analysis techniques. The package is freely available on the CRAN repository. © 2024 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Processing Affymetrix microarrays Basic Protocol 2: Processing Agilent microarrays Support Protocol: Processing RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) data Basic Protocol 3: Differential analysis of microarray data (Affymetrix and Agilent) Basic Protocol 4: Differential analysis of RNA-Seq data Basic Protocol 5: Gene set enrichment analysis Basic Protocol 6: Topology-based (TB) pathway analysis Basic Protocol 7: Data integration and visualization.

Indexed as

Computational BiologySoftwareGene Expression ProfilingHumansdifferential analysisintegration and visualizationmicroarraypathway analysisRNA sequencing

Identifiers

PMID38713133
PMCPMC11081534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.