ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Identifying patterns differing between high-dimensional datasets with generalized contrastive PCA.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- GPR180 deficiency impairs mitochondrial function and insulin secretion in pancreatic β-cells.Molecular metabolism · 2026Article
- Article
- Sleep reveals dynamics integrating and segregating movement and stimulus representations in V1.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Genetic Associations with Temporal Modeling of Alzheimer's Disease Progression Supports a Novel Paradigm for Disease Risk.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Contrastive Dimension Reduction: A Systematic Review.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational statistics · 2026Article
- The Rayleigh Quotient and Contrastive Principal Component Analysis I.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Generalized contrastive PCA is equivalent to generalized eigendecomposition.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Response to comment on "Identifying patterns differing between high-dimensional datasets with generalized contrastive PCA".PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-dimensional data have become ubiquitous in the biological sciences, and it is often desirable to compare two datasets collected under different experimental conditions to extract low-dimensional patterns enriched in one condition. However, traditional dimensionality reduction techniques cannot accomplish this because they operate on only one dataset. Contrastive principal component analysis (cPCA) has been proposed to address this problem, but it has seen little adoption because it requires tuning a hyperparameter resulting in multiple solutions, with no way of knowing which is correct. Moreover, cPCA uses foreground and background conditions that are treated differently, making it ill-suited to compare two experimental conditions symmetrically. Here we describe the development of generalized contrastive PCA (gcPCA), a flexible hyperparameter-free approach that solves these problems. We first provide analyses explaining why cPCA requires a hyperparameter and how gcPCA avoids this requirement. We then describe an open-source gcPCA toolbox containing Python and MATLAB implementations of several variants of gcPCA tailored for different scenarios. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of gcPCA in analyzing diverse high-dimensional biological data, revealing unsupervised detection of hippocampal replay in neurophysiological recordings and heterogeneity of type II diabetes in single-cell RNA sequencing data. As a fast, robust, and easy-to-use comparison method, gcPCA provides a valuable resource facilitating the analysis of diverse high-dimensional datasets to gain new insights into complex biological phenomena.
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.