ArticleNPJ systems biology and applications2024
Evaluation of single-sample network inference methods for precision oncology.
Article in NPJ systems biology and applications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cell line-specific gene network enrichment analysis for interpreting continuous phenotypes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Pseudogene Coexpression Networks Reveal a Robust Prognostic Signature for Pediatric B-ALL Survival.Cancer research communications · 2026Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Single-Sample Network Modeling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Metagenomic analysis reveals how multiple stressors disrupt virus-host interactions in multi-trophic freshwater mesocosms.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A single-cell multimodal view on gene regulatory network inference from transcriptomics and chromatin accessibility data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A major challenge in precision oncology is to detect targetable cancer vulnerabilities in individual patients. Modeling high-throughput omics data in biological networks allows identifying key molecules and processes of tumorigenesis. Traditionally, network inference methods rely on many samples to contain sufficient information for learning, resulting in aggregate networks. However, to implement patient-tailored approaches in precision oncology, we need to interpret omics data at the level of individual patients. Several single-sample network inference methods have been developed that infer biological networks for an individual sample from bulk RNA-seq data. However, only a limited comparison of these methods has been made and many methods rely on 'normal tissue' samples as reference, which are not always available. Here, we conducted an evaluation of the single-sample network inference methods SSN, LIONESS, SWEET, iENA, CSN and SSPGI using transcriptomic profiles of lung and brain cancer cell lines from the CCLE database. The methods constructed functional gene networks with distinct network characteristics. Hub gene analyses revealed different degrees of subtype-specificity across methods. Single-sample networks were able to distinguish between tumor subtypes, as exemplified by node strength clustering, enrichment of known subtype-specific driver genes among hubs and differential node strength. We also showed that single-sample networks correlated better to other omics data from the same cell line as compared to aggregate networks. We conclude that single-sample network inference methods can reflect sample-specific biology when 'normal tissue' samples are absent and we point out peculiarities of each method.
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.