ArticleBMC bioinformatics2025
Correcting scale distortion in RNA sequencing data.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multi-omics integration of bulk and single-cell transcriptomics identifies and validates a 16-gene epithelial-mesenchymal transition prognostic signature in tongue squamous cell carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Comprehensive profiling of RPP40 across human cancers reveals its essential role and multidimensional clinical correlates.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- ZNF473 as a biomarker and potential therapeutic target in cancer: integrated bioinformatics and experimental evidence with a focus on hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- PSD3 as a context-dependent modulator of immune landscape and tumor aggressiveness in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) is the conventional genome-scale approach used to capture the expression levels of all detectable genes in a biological sample. This is now regularly used for population-based studies designed to identify genetic determinants of various diseases. Naturally, the accuracy of these tests should be verified and improved if possible. In this study, we aimed to detect and correct for expression level-dependent errors which are not corrected by conventional normalization techniques. We examined several RNA-seq datasets from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), Stand Up 2 Cancer (SU2C), and GTEx databases with various types of preprocessing. By applying local averaging, we found expression-level dependent biases that differ from sample to sample in all datasets studied. Using simulations, we show that these biases corrupt gene-gene correlation estimations and t tests between subpopulations. To mitigate these biases, we introduce two different nonlinear transforms based on statistical considerations that correct these observed biases. We demonstrate that these transforms effectively remove the observed per-sample biases, reduce sample-to-sample variance, and improve the characteristics of gene-gene correlation distributions. Using a novel simulation methodology that creates controlled differences between subpopulations, we show that these transforms reduce variability and increase sensitivity of two population tests. The improvements in sensitivity and specificity were of the order of 3-5% in most instances after the data was corrected for bias. Altogether, these results improve our capacity to understand gene-gene relationships, and may lead to novel ways to utilize the information derived from clinical tests.
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.