ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022
Benefits and Challenges of Pre-clustered Network-Based Pathway Analysis.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pseudohypoaldosterism: demystification using network medicine and proposed diagnostic panels.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2026Article
- Proteomic biomarkers and biological pathways associated with atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Heterogeneous network approaches to protein pathway prediction.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Trends in drug development for rare and intractable diseases based on the KEGG NETWORK.NAR molecular medicine · 2024Article
- TOPAS, a network-based approach to detect disease modules in a top-down fashion.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2022Article
- From Traditional Ethnopharmacology to Modern Natural Drug Discovery: A Methodology Discussion and Specific Examples.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional analysis of gene sets derived from experiments is typically done by pathway annotation. Although many algorithms exist for analyzing the association between a gene set and a pathway, an issue which is generally ignored is that gene sets often represent multiple pathways. In such cases an association to a pathway is weakened by the presence of genes associated with other pathways. A way to counteract this is to cluster the gene set into more homogenous parts before performing pathway analysis on each module. We explored whether network-based pre-clustering of a query gene set can improve pathway analysis. The methods MCL, Infomap, and MGclus were used to cluster the gene set projected onto the FunCoup network. We characterized how well these methods are able to detect individual pathways in multi-pathway gene sets, and applied each of the clustering methods in combination with four pathway analysis methods: Gene Enrichment Analysis, BinoX, NEAT, and ANUBIX. Using benchmarks constructed from the KEGG pathway database we found that clustering can be beneficial by increasing the sensitivity of pathway analysis methods and by providing deeper insights of biological mechanisms related to the phenotype under study. However, keeping a high specificity is a challenge. For ANUBIX, clustering caused a minor loss of specificity, while for BinoX and NEAT it caused an unacceptable loss of specificity. GEA had very low sensitivity both before and after clustering. The choice of clustering method only had a minor effect on the results. We show examples of this approach and conclude that clustering can improve overall pathway annotation performance, but should only be used if the used enrichment method has a low false positive rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.