ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Benchmarking enrichment analysis methods with the disease pathway network.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Problems With GO Enrichment as an Endpoint for Ecological Omics Interpretation.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Benchmarking multiple gene ontology enrichment tools reveals high biological significance, ranking, and stringency heterogeneity among datasets.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- A practical guide to functional enrichment analysis.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Integrative Analysis of Vitamin D-Associated Genetic Variants Reveals Cis-Regulatory Architecture and Multigenic Mechanisms Underlying Chronic Disease-Relevant Pathways.Human mutation · 2026Article
- Microarray-based characterization of airway inflammation induced by environmental Acanthamoeba exposure versus the ovalbumin-alum model.Parasites, hosts and diseases · 2025Article
- Weighted overlapping group lasso for integrating prior network knowledge into gene set analysis.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- FunCoup 6: advancing functional association networks across species with directed links and improved user experience.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Article
- Mining single-cell data for cell type-disease associations.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Enrichment analysis (EA) is a common approach to gain functional insights from genome-scale experiments. As a consequence, a large number of EA methods have been developed, yet it is unclear from previous studies which method is the best for a given dataset. The main issues with previous benchmarks include the complexity of correctly assigning true pathways to a test dataset, and lack of generality of the evaluation metrics, for which the rank of a single target pathway is commonly used. We here provide a generalized EA benchmark and apply it to the most widely used EA methods, representing all four categories of current approaches. The benchmark employs a new set of 82 curated gene expression datasets from DNA microarray and RNA-Seq experiments for 26 diseases, of which only 13 are cancers. In order to address the shortcomings of the single target pathway approach and to enhance the sensitivity evaluation, we present the Disease Pathway Network, in which related Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathways are linked. We introduce a novel approach to evaluate pathway EA by combining sensitivity and specificity to provide a balanced evaluation of EA methods. This approach identifies Network Enrichment Analysis methods as the overall top performers compared with overlap-based methods. By using randomized gene expression datasets, we explore the null hypothesis bias of each method, revealing that most of them produce skewed P-values.
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.