ReviewCommunications biology2024
Imperfect gold standard gene sets yield inaccurate evaluation of causal gene identification methods.
Review in Communications biology, 2024. 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.
- Data-intensive immune network modelling for One Health.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
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
Causal gene discovery methods are often evaluated using reference sets of causal genes, which are treated as gold standards (GS) for the purposes of evaluation. However, evaluation methods typically treat genes not in the GS positive set as known negatives rather than unknowns. This leads to inaccurate estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Labeling biases in GS gene sets can also lead to inaccurate ordering of alternative causal gene discovery methods. We argue that the evaluation of causal gene discovery methods should rely on statistical techniques like those used for variant discovery rather than on comparison with GS gene sets.
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.