ArticleGenes2026
Statistical Visibility of Curated TF-Target Regulatory Relationships and Reverse Consistency of Top-Ranked TF-Gene Pairs in Single-Cell Expression Data.
Article in Genes, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesLarge language models and automated analytical tools show potential for biomedical text understanding, knowledge integration, and single-cell data interpretation, but interpretations of specific gene regulatory relationships still require empirical grounding. For TF-target relationships, one relevant constraint is whether curated regulatory edges show detectable expression-level statistical evidence in the single-cell data being interpreted, because such evidence may vary across cellular states, conditions, and regulatory mechanisms. We therefore evaluated the statistical visibility of known transcription factor (TF)-target relationships in single-cell expression space to aid the interpretation of regulatory inference and automated-tool outputs.
methodsWe performed two complementary analyses: first, testing whether curated TF-target edges showed stronger pair-level associations than matched background gene pairs; and second, assessing whether high-scoring TF-gene pairs corresponded to existing regulatory knowledge and whether their target genes showed pathway coherence.
resultsAcross four peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) datasets, four adult tissues, and seven adult cell types, curated TF-target relationships showed weak but reproducible statistical visibility rather than strong separation. For all five association metrics, the mean area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) was only slightly above the random-ranking baseline of 0.5. High-scoring pairs were more often supported by curated resources, and their target genes showed context-specific Hallmark pathway coherence.
conclusionsSingle-cell expression associations can provide useful but limited statistical clues for TF-target regulation and should be interpreted as complementary rather than definitive regulatory evidence.
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.