ArticleBMC research notes2025
The importance of data transformation in RNA-Seq preprocessing for bladder cancer subtyping.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. 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.
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
objectiveRNA-Seq provides an accurate quantification of gene expression levels and it is widely used for molecular subtype classification in cancer, with special importance in prognosis. However, the reliability and validity of these analyses can significantly be influenced by how data are processed. In this study we evaluate how RNA-Seq preprocessing methods influence molecular subtype classification in bladder cancer. By benchmarking various aligners, quantifiers and methods of normalization and transformation, we stress the importance of preprocessing choices for accurate and consistent subtype classification.
resultsOur findings highlight that log-transformation plays a crucial role in centroid-based classifiers such as consensusMIBC and TCGAclas, while distribution-free algorithms like LundTax offer robustness to preprocessing variations. Non log-transformed data resulted in low classification rates and poor agreement with reference classifications in consensusMIBC and TCGAclas classifiers. Additionally, LundTax consistently demonstrated better separation among subtypes, compared to consensusMIBC and TCGAclas, regardless of preprocessing methods. Nonetheless, the study is limited by the lack of a true reference for objective assessment of the accuracy of the assigned subtypes. Hence, future work will be necessary to determine the robustness and scalability of the obtained results.
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.