ArticleBMC genomics2025
Extending gene set variation analysis with a reference dataset to stabilize scores.
Article in BMC genomics, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiological pathways are sets of genes that jointly drive biological processes. Rather than analyzing genes individually, it is common practice to summarize sets of related genes using gene set variation analysis (GSVA). In short, GSVA summarizes a set of genes into a single score bounded between -1 and 1, where negative values suggest downregulation and positive values suggest upregulation. Although this interpretation is simple in theory, it depends on unbiased estimation of individual gene distributions. In the current version of GSVA, gene distributions are estimated using the input dataset (i.e., the scores are calculated based on the gene distributions from the same dataset). This becomes a major issue when study data does not adequately represent the full distribution of the population. For example, if RNA-seq data was collected on an imbalanced sample (e.g., more disease samples than healthy controls), it would be difficult to discern abnormalities in pathway activity since the gene distributions were estimated on a biased population. Therefore, we propose reference stabilizing GSVA (rsGSVA), a solution to this commonly ignored limitation by using reference datasets to estimate the gene distributions for a more stable GSVA score.
resultsrsGSVA shows comparable power to classic GSVA, singscore, and ssGSEA under ideal settings while demonstrating stable scores on sample subsets. An application on irritable bowel disease highlights interpretational advantages of rsGSVA to other methods in up/down regulation of inflammation signatures.
conclusionsThe rsGSVA technique enhances the GSVA functionality by incorporating a reference dataset. This integration of a reference dataset makes the enrichment scores independent of the input distribution and ensures their stability and reproducibility, even as samples are added or removed.
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.