ArticleScientific reports2025
Characterizing the omics landscape based on 10,000+ datasets.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Intervertebral Disc Biology via Omics: Implications for Nucleus Pulposus Progenitor Cell-Based Regeneration.JOR spine · 2025Review
- Harp: data harmonization for computational tissue deconvolution across diverse transcriptomics platforms.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of normalization strategies for mass spectrometry-based multi-omics datasets.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The characteristics of data produced by omics technologies are pivotal, as they critically influence the feasibility and effectiveness of computational methods applied in downstream analyses, such as data harmonization and differential abundance analyses. Furthermore, variability in these data characteristics across datasets plays a crucial role, leading to diverging outcomes in benchmarking studies, which are essential for guiding the selection of appropriate analysis methods in all omics fields. Additionally, downstream analysis tools are often developed and applied within specific omics communities due to the presumed differences in data characteristics attributed to each omics technology. In this study, we investigate over ten thousand datasets to understand how proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, transcriptomics, and microbiome data vary in specific data characteristics. We were able to show patterns of data characteristics specific to the investigated omics types and provide a tool that enables researchers to assess how representative a given omics dataset is for its respective discipline. Moreover, we illustrate how data characteristics can impact analyses at the example of normalization in the presence of sample-dependent proportions of missing values. Given the variability of omics data characteristics, we encourage the systematic inspection of these characteristics in benchmark studies and for downstream analyses to prevent suboptimal method selection and unintended bias.
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.