Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41872019›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026

Diagnosing scientific replicability through probabilistic distinguishability.

Peng Wang, Hongyuan Cao, Xiaoquan Wen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Peng WangSchool of Mathematics, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin 130012, China.ORCID 0009-0002-3369-4048
Hongyuan CaoDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, Abu Dhabi, P.O. Box 7909, United Arab Emirates.
Xiaoquan WenDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8990-2737

Funding

Resolving Methodological Challenges in Genomics Research: Causality, Risk Prediction, and Reproducibility: Administrative SupplementR35GM138121 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Xiaoquan Wen · 2020 to 2026
$2.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM138121NIH HHS R35-GM138121NSF DMS-2311249
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationDespite the widely recognized importance of replicability in biological research, computational methods to quantify irreplicability and identify irreplicable instances remain underdeveloped. This article presents an efficient and robust computational framework to address this gap.

resultsTo tackle the challenge of defining an acceptable level of intrinsic heterogeneity among replicable studies, we introduce a distinguishability criterion, ensuring that replicable effects, while potentially heterogeneous, can be distinguished from zero effects and maintain consistent directions with high probability. We implement a Bayesian model criticism approach, reporting a Bayesian P-value to identify potential irreplicable instances. Through numerical experiments, we demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed methods in detecting batch effects in high-throughput experiments and identifying instances of the publication bias. Finally, we apply the framework to multi-tissue eQTL data from the GTEx consortium, uncovering tissue-specific eQTLs that represent biological heterogeneity across tissues. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: An R package DiscRep implementing our method is available on GitHub (https://github.com/PengWang96/DiscRep).

Indexed as

Computational BiologySoftwareAlgorithmsBayes TheoremHumansQuantitative Trait LociReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID41872019
PMCPMC13148965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.