ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Inferring and evaluating network medicine-based disease modules with nextflow.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Framework for Benchmarking Pathway Reconstruction Algorithms.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationMost diseases result from complex molecular interactions of genes and proteins. Various network-based methods characterize these mechanisms by expanding seed genes into disease modules. Their underlying algorithmic strategies differ, making it difficult to determine which of the created modules are most useful or biologically plausible.
resultsTo address this challenge, we developed an all-in-one pipeline that handles installation, input preparation, execution, and systematic evaluation of six widely used module detection tools, considering module topology, functional coherence, robustness, and the capacity to recover seeds. To showcase the value of our pipeline and provide guidance to potential users, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation across 50 different disease-network combinations, revealing substantial variability among the derived disease modules, driven by both network and algorithm choices. We show that methods are robust to minor perturbations but struggle to recover omitted seeds. None consistently outperforms all others, underscoring the need for careful method selection. Our work enables the systematic comparison of disease module discovery approaches and promotes reproducible network medicine research. Integrated into the nf-core project, it is intended as an extendable, long-term resource for tracking progress in the field. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The pipeline is implemented in Nextflow. Code and documentation are available through GitHub (https://github.com/nf-core/diseasemodulediscovery) and the nf-core website (https://nf-co.re/diseasemodulediscovery). Code and data used for demonstrating the pipeline are available through GitHub (https://github.com/REPO4EU/modulediscovery_demonstration).
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.