ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Evaluation and Aggregation of Active Module Identification Algorithms.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: High-throughput sequencing methods have generated vast amounts of genetic data for candidate gene studies. As a part of the analysis, candidate genes are often analyzed through Gene-Gene interaction (GGI) networks. These networks can become very large, necessitating efficient methods to reduce their complexity. Active Module Identification (AMI) is a common method to analyze GGI networks by identifying enriched subnetworks representing relevant biological processes. Multiple AMI algorithms have been developed for biological datasets, and a comprehensive assessment of these algorithms and a comparative analysis of their behaviors across a variety of use-cases are crucial for their appropriate applications. Results: In this study, we use the Empirical Pipeline (EMP) to evaluate four AMI algorithms - PAPER, DOMINO, FDRnet, and HotNet2 - on their ability to produce context-specific enrichment. When testing the algorithms on four biological datasets, our results reveal that no single algorithm outperforms the others across all datasets. Moreover, the output modules are often dissimilar, suggesting that different algorithms capture complementary biological signals. Our results suggest that a comprehensive analysis requires the aggregation of outputs from multiple algorithms. We propose two methods to this end: a spectral clustering approach for module aggregation, and an algorithm that combines modules with similar network structures called Greedy Conductance-based Merging (GCM). Conclusions: Overall, our results advance our understanding of AMI algorithms and how they should be applied. Tools and workflows developed in this study will facilitate researchers working with AMI algorithms to enhance their analyses. Our code is freely available at https://github.com/LiuJ0/AMI-Benchmark/.
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.