ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
Enhancing validation of case-control omics signatures through "minimalist" single-subject analysis (N-of-1 trials): proof of concept in sepsis.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate if a single-subject study (S3) design, utilizing paired transcriptome samples from the same patient (eg, "sepsis" vs "recovered"), can replicate transcriptomic signatures from small case-control studies, addressing challenges in patient accrual for rare or sub-stratified diseases.
methodsWe generated a sepsis gene signature (SGS) comprising 300 differentially expressed genes (DEGs; FDR < 5%) from a human sepsis case-control cohort using general linear models (GLMs). Reproducibility of SGS was assessed through three approaches applied to sub-sampled independent datasets: single-subject analyses (N-of-1-MixEnrich), anticipated to perform better; conventional paired-sample GLM analyses; and a traditional case-control GLM analysis.
resultsSGS reproducibility in GLM analyses was inconsistent at smaller cohort sizes (∼80% reproducibility; n = 5) but stabilized at cohort sizes >6. Remarkably, the single-subject-study approach consistently reproduced SGS in each of the 18 subjects individually (100% reproducibility; n = 1). DISCUSSION: Conventional GLMs are not designed for single-subject or small cohort analyses due to their dependence on larger samples to mitigate variable dispersion and human heterogeneity. In contrast, S3 methods enhance statistical power by: reducing multiple testing through gene set aggregation, emphasizing concordant changes in pathway activity rather than exact molecular consistency, and exploiting paired samples from the same individual.
conclusionThis proof-of-concept demonstrates that S3 designs effectively validate gene expression signatures derived from case-control studies, highlighting their potential in research or clinical trials constrained by small sample sizes. However, further validation and computational simulation are needed to demonstrate scalability to other conditions and sensitivity to validation subject variations from the "average subject" of discovery cohorts.
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.