Evidence mapPaperPMID 41554049Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026

Turning heterogeneity of statistical epistasis networks to an advantage.

Diane Duroux, Federico Melograna, Héctor Climente-González, Bowen Fan, Andrew Walakira, Edoardo Efrem Gervasoni, Zuqi Li, Damian Roqueiro, Fabio Stella, Kristel Van Steen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Diane DurouxBIO3-GIGA-R Molecular and Computation Biology, University of Liege, Place du 20 Août 7, B-4000 Liège, Belgium.
Federico MelogranaBIO3-GIGA-R Molecular and Computation Biology, University of Liege, Place du 20 Août 7, B-4000 Liège, Belgium.
Héctor Climente-GonzálezHigh-Dimensional Statistical Modeling Team, RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103-0027, Japan.
Bowen FanDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Klingelbergstrasse 48, 4056 Basel, Switzerland.
Andrew WalakiraFaculty of Medicine, Centre for Functional Genomics and Bio-Chips, Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Ljubljana, Vrazov trg 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Edoardo Efrem GervasoniDepartment of Informatics, Systems, and Communications, University of Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, 20125 Milano (MI), Italy.
Zuqi LiBIO3-Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Damian RoqueiroDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Klingelbergstrasse 48, 4056 Basel, Switzerland.
Fabio StellaDepartment of Informatics, Systems, and Communications, University of Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, 20125 Milano (MI), Italy.
Kristel Van SteenBIO3-GIGA-R Molecular and Computation Biology, University of Liege, Place du 20 Août 7, B-4000 Liège, Belgium.

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 813533RIKEN Special Postdoctoral Researcher Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epistasis detection is hindered by multiple challenges, including the proliferation of analytic tools and the diverse methodological choices made in Genome-Wide Association Interaction Studies (GWAIS). These factors often produce inconsistent and only partially overlapping results, with individual methods emphasizing distinct aspects of epistasis. Although comparative evaluations of GWAIS approaches exist, they generally do not identify the factors responsible for methodological discrepancies or assess their implications for biomedical research. Consequently, it remains unclear which features of GWAIS strategies contribute most to these differences and which methods are most appropriate for revealing specific genetic architectures. Here, we present a workflow designed to characterize heterogeneity in GWAIS results and derive practical recommendations systematically. First, we assess non-replicability by comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms-pair rankings and Statistical Epistasis Networks (SENs)-graphs in which nodes represent genetic loci and edges denote epistatic interactions-to identify clusters of protocols with similar outcomes. SENs provide a structured framework for visualizing and comparing variation in epistasis detection, enabling prioritization of interactions recurrently identified across methods. Second, we propose strategies to reduce heterogeneity and enhance robustness, with particular emphasis on interpretability. Notably, we demonstrate that differences among SENs can be informative rather than disadvantageous, as they yield complementary perspectives on disease genetics. Finally, we highlight the benefits of informed SEN aggregation, showing how this approach can strengthen the utility of GWAIS for elucidating biological mechanisms relevant to disease prevention, diagnosis, and management.

Indexed as

Epistasis, GeneticGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansModels, GeneticPolymorphism, Single NucleotideepistasisGWAISheterogeneityIBDstatistical epistasis networks

Identifiers

PMID41554049
PMCPMC12814973

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.