ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
A Framework for Benchmarking Pathway Reconstruction Algorithms.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cells coordinate diverse biological processes through interactions among thousands of molecules, but mapping these interactions comprehensively and systematically remains an open problem. Pathway reconstruction algorithms address this problem by linking molecules of interest, identified from high-throughput omics experiments, using prior knowledge encoded as background interaction networks. This process recovers intermediate molecules and interactions that were not directly measured in the experimental data but plausibly connect the observed molecules. It generates testable hypotheses about interactions that drive cell behavior and informs the choice of follow-up experiments. Many algorithms have been created over decades, each optimizing different computational objectives and relying on different assumptions. The resulting heterogeneity has made benchmarking challenging, limiting systematic comparisons. Therefore, selecting an algorithm for a given biological context remains a non-trivial and poorly informed task. This registered report presents a large-scale benchmark of pathway reconstruction algorithms, evaluating 14 algorithms across 822 datasets from four biological settings. To enable this benchmark, we introduce Signaling Pathway Reconstruction Analysis Streamliner (SPRAS), which standardizes algorithm inputs, outputs, and execution into a formal framework, enabling systematic comparison that was previously infeasible. We will assess each algorithm on reconstruction performance against gold standard pathways, algorithm similarity, and computational performance across different biological contexts. Together, these evaluations will provide quantitative evidence for understanding pathway reconstruction algorithm behavior and guiding algorithm selection.
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.