Differential Expression Enrichment Tool (DEET): An interactive atlas of human differential gene expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Differential gene expression analysis using RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data is a standard approach for making biological discoveries. Ongoing large-scale efforts to process and normalize publicly available gene expression data enable rapid and systematic reanalysis. While several powerful tools systematically process RNA-seq data, enabling their reanalysis, few resources systematically recompute differentially expressed genes (DEGs) generated from individual studies. We developed a robust differential expression analysis pipeline to recompute 3162 human DEG lists from The Cancer Genome Atlas, Genotype-Tissue Expression Consortium, and 142 studies within the Sequence Read Archive. After measuring the accuracy of the recomputed DEG lists, we built the Differential Expression Enrichment Tool (DEET), which enables users to interact with the recomputed DEG lists. DEET, available through CRAN and RShiny, systematically queries which of the recomputed DEG lists share similar genes, pathways, and TF targets to their own gene lists. DEET identifies relevant studies based on shared results with the user’s gene lists, aiding in hypothesis generation and data-driven literature review. Highlights By curating metadata from uniformly processed human RNA-seq studies, we created a database of 3162 differential expression analyses. These analyses include TCGA, GTEx, and 142 unique studies in SRA, involving 985 distinct experimental conditions. The Differential Expression Enrichment Tool (DEET) allows users to systematically compare their gene lists to this database.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".