Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42275462›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

Robust discovery of mutational signatures using power posteriors.

Catherine Xue, Jeffrey W Miller, Scott L Carter, Jonathan H Huggins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Catherine XueDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jeffrey W MillerDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Scott L CarterDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jonathan H HugginsDepartment of Mathematics & Statistics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9256-6727

Funding

Statistical methods for cancer genomics and cell-free DNA analysisR01CA240299 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI MILLER, JEFFREY WAYNE · 2020 to 2024
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA240299
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mutational processes, such as the molecular effects of carcinogenic agents or defective DNA repair mechanisms, produce different mutation types with characteristic frequency profiles, known as mutational signatures. Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) has been successfully used to discover many mutational signatures, yielding novel insights into cancer etiology and informing targeted therapies. However, the NMF model is only a rough approximation to reality, and even small departures from this assumed model can have large negative effects on the accuracy and reliability of the results. We propose BayesPowerNMF, a Bayesian NMF method that provides nonparametric robustness to model misspecification, principled automated selection of the number of latent processes, and uncertainty quantification of model parameters. In extensive simulation studies, we find that our proposed approach recovers more true signatures with greater accuracy than current leading methods. On whole-genome sequencing data for six cancer types from the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes Consortium, we find that our method is able to accurately recover more signatures than the current state-of-the-art.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyMutationAlgorithmsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationDNA Mutational AnalysisHumansModels, GeneticNeoplasmsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID42275462
PMCPMC13274926

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.