ArticleGenome biology2024
Overlooked poor-quality patient samples in sequencing data impair reproducibility of published clinically relevant datasets.
Article in Genome biology, 2024. 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.
- Next-Generation Sequencing: A Review of Its Transformative Impact on Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Resistance Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Development of an End-to-End Total RNA Sequencing Quality Control Framework for Blood-Based Biomarker Discovery.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReproducibility is a major concern in biomedical studies, and existing publication guidelines do not solve the problem. Batch effects and quality imbalances between groups of biological samples are major factors hampering reproducibility. Yet, the latter is rarely considered in the scientific literature.
resultsOur analysis uses 40 clinically relevant RNA-seq datasets to quantify the impact of quality imbalance between groups of samples on the reproducibility of gene expression studies. High-quality imbalance is frequent (14 datasets; 35%), and hundreds of quality markers are present in more than 50% of the datasets. Enrichment analysis suggests common stress-driven effects among the low-quality samples and highlights a complementary role of transcription factors and miRNAs to regulate stress response. Preliminary ChIP-seq results show similar trends. Quality imbalance has an impact on the number of differential genes derived by comparing control to disease samples (the higher the imbalance, the higher the number of genes), on the proportion of quality markers in top differential genes (the higher the imbalance, the higher the proportion; up to 22%) and on the proportion of known disease genes in top differential genes (the higher the imbalance, the lower the proportion). We show that removing outliers based on their quality score improves the resulting downstream analysis.
conclusionsThanks to a stringent selection of well-designed datasets, we demonstrate that quality imbalance between groups of samples can significantly reduce the relevance of differential genes, consequently reducing reproducibility between studies. Appropriate experimental design and analysis methods can substantially reduce the problem.
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.