ArticleBioinformatics advances2026
A dual approach to evaluate the performance of RNA-Seq data analysis pipelines with weak signals.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In this study, we evaluated 90 bioinformatics pipelines using RNA-Seq datasets from Rats, Zebrafish and Mice. The analysis was conducted in the context of weak signals, including exposure to metallic particles (tungsten), low-dose radiation or medical treatment. RNA-Seq data analysis involves several critical steps, from quality control to differential expression analysis, each offering multiple algorithmic options. Selecting the optimal pipeline is particularly challenging in complex scenarios with weak signals.We applied a dual strategy based on two complementary approaches to rank and evaluate the performance of these pipelines. The first approach, a widely used method, is based on the correlation between RNA-Seq and qRT-PCR expression data to ensure the direct validation of RNA-Seq results. The second approach leverages machine learning classifiers to rank the pipelines based on their ability to distinguish between exposure groups. This dual strategy was designed to identify the most reliable pipelines capable of providing accurate biological insights, with the top-performing pipeline highlighting key biological processes linked to a weak signal. Results: Our results highlight the crucial role of pipeline selection in RNA-Seq studies, as it influences both analysis efficiency and biological insights. While our findings are particularly relevant for studies with weak RNA-Seq signals, the ranking methods we employed can be applied in other fields to identify the most appropriate pipeline for generating biologically meaningful data. We provide practical recommendations for bioinformaticians to select robust pipelines, ensuring reliable and insightful outcomes across various research contexts, including environmental exposures. Conclusions: RNA-Seq pipelines that are effective for strong signals may fail with weak signals or noisy RNA-seq data. Our classifier-based ranking approach is still particularly useful, even when the sequencing depth is lower. Pipelines' sensitivity has a greater impact on counting and normalization than on trimming and mapping. StringTie should be prioritized as a counting method for data with weak signals.
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.