ArticleBalkan medical journal2026
Complementary ROC-Derived Indices for Screening Improper Expression Profiles in RNA-Seq Differential Expression Analysis.
Article in Balkan medical journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Differential expression (DE) analysis of RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) data are cornerstone of transcriptomic research. Widely used statistical frameworks are primarily optimized to detect monotonic mean shifts between conditions and may therefore overlook genes or microRNAs whose disease association arises at both low and high expression levels. Such non-monotonic patterns, referred to here as improper expression profiles, may reflect biologically relevant heterogeneity but remain difficult to identify using standard tools. Aims: To evaluated whether receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-based indices, specifically the generalized area under the curve (gAUC) and the length of the ROC curve (LROC), can support exploratory screening and prioritization of improper expression profiles in RNA-Seq data, as a complement to conventional DE methods. Study Design: Methodological study. Methods: Using simulated negative binomial count data, we compared DESeq2, classical AUC (cAUC), gAUC, and LROC across varying sample sizes and dispersion levels, focusing on improper expression profiles. Performance was summarized using true positive rate and positive predictive value under ranking-based feature selection, including a one-shot benchmark operating point (available only in simulations) and sensitivity analyses across selection sizes. The methods were also applied to a publicly available CC miRNA dataset using heuristic post-hoc screening rules informed by simulation diagnostics. Results: cAUC was largely insensitive to improper expression patterns. DESeq2 performed robustly for conventionally differentially expressed features but recovered a smaller fraction of simulated improper profiles under ranking-based selection. Across simulation scenarios, gAUC showed the highest and most stable recovery of improper profiles, whereas LROC provided complementary signal under low-to-moderate dispersion but degraded under extreme overdispersion. In the CC dataset, ROC-derived indices identified candidate improper miRNAs that were not prioritized by DESeq2, and several top candidates had literature support consistent with biological plausibility. Conclusion: gAUC, supported by LROC as an auxiliary index, provides a practical ROC-based screening extension to standard RNA-Seq workflows. Because these indices are applied using heuristic thresholds without controlled error rates, the resulting candidates should be interpreted as exploratory prioritization and require independent validation.
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.