Gene annotation bias impedes biomedical research
Abstract
1We found tremendous inequality across gene and protein annotation resources. We observe that this bias leads biomedical researchers to focus on richly annotated genes instead of those with the strongest molecular data. We advocate for researchers to reduce these biases by pursuing data-driven hypotheses.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 191
- FWCI
- 6.22
- Field percentile
- top 2%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A Longitudinal Analysis of Function Annotations of the Human Proteome Reveals Consistently High Biases
An Phan, Parnal Joshi, … Iddo Friedberg·DatabasePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2025
- Interpretation of biological experiments changes with evolution of Gene Ontology and its annotations
Aurelie Tomczak, Jonathan Mortensen, … Purvesh Khatri·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Mar 23, 2018
- GOThresher: a program to remove annotation biases from protein function annotation datasets
Parnal Joshi, Sagnik Banerjee, … Iddo Friedberg·BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2023
- GhostBuster: A Deep-Learning-based, Literature-Unbiased Gene Prioritization Tool for Gene Annotation Prediction
Giulio Deangeli, Maria Grazia Spillantini, Píetro Lió·bioRxiv·Jun 22, 2025
- Selective attention in hypothesis-driven data analysis
I. Yanai, M. Lercher·bioRxiv·Jul 30, 2020
- Meta-Research: understudied genes are lost in a leaky pipeline between genome-wide assays and reporting of results
Reese A. K. Richardson, Heliodoro Tejedor Navarro, … Thomas Stoeger·eLifePeer-reviewed·Dec 15, 2023