ArticleGenome biology2025
A robust workflow to benchmark deconvolution of multi-omic data.
Article in Genome biology, 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.
- Standardized metrics for assessment and reproducibility of imaging-based spatial transcriptomics datasets.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTumour heterogeneity significantly affects cancer progression and therapeutic response, yet quantifying it from bulk molecular data remains challenging. Deconvolution algorithms, which estimate cell type proportions in bulk samples, offer a potential solution. However, there is no consensus on the optimal algorithm for transcriptomic or methylomic data.
resultsHere, we present an unbiased evaluation framework for the first comprehensive comparison of deconvolution algorithms across both omic types, including reference-based and -free approaches. Our evaluation covers raw performance, stability, and computational efficiency under varying conditions, such as gene dependencies, missing or additional cell types and diverse sample compositions. We apply this framework across multiple benchmark datasets, including a novel multi-omics dataset generated specifically for this study. To ensure transparency and re-usability, we have designed a reproducible workflow using containerization and publicly available code.
conclusionsOur results highlight the strengths and limitations of various algorithms, and provides practical guidance for selecting the best method based on data type and analysis context. This benchmark sets a new standard for evaluating deconvolution methods and analysing tumour heterogeneity.
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.