ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
AUPRC: a metric for evaluating the performance of in-silico perturbation methods in identifying differentially expressed genes.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In silico perturbation models, computational methods that can predict cellular responses to perturbations, present an opportunity to reduce the need for costly and time-intensive in vitro experiments. Many recently proposed models predict high-dimensional cellular responses, such as gene or protein expression to perturbations such as gene knockout or drugs. However, evaluating in silico performance has largely relied on metrics such as $R^{2}$, which assess overall prediction accuracy but fail to capture biologically significant outcomes like the identification of differentially expressed (DE) genes. In this study, we present a novel evaluation framework that introduces the AUPRC metric to assess the precision and recall of DE gene predictions. By applying this framework to both single-cell and pseudo-bulked datasets, we systematically benchmark simple and advanced computational models. Our results highlight a significant discrepancy between $R^{2}$ and AUPRC, with models achieving high $R^{2}$ values but struggling to identify DE genes, as reflected in their low AUPRC values. This finding underscores the limitations of traditional evaluation metrics and the importance of biologically relevant assessments. Our framework provides a more comprehensive understanding of model capabilities, advancing the application of computational approaches in cellular perturbation research.
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.