Before-and-after transcriptomic studies in rheumatic disease often report weak or nonreproducible treatment signals despite robust discrimination of disease state. The authors posed a focused question: are commonly used exposure and response-prediction labels simply below the detectability floor given the experimental designs that generate them, whereas matched disease-state labels remain above that floor?
The work aims to audit existing response-label constructs and benchmark trajectories across multiple public datasets, quantify effect sizes relative to each design's minimum detectable effect, and interpret how study design and treatment intensity influence detectability.
Eight publicly available datasets were analysed. These included paired clinical cohorts and experimental series: juvenile dermatomyositis (paired, n = 10), rheumatoid arthritis before and after methotrexate treatment (n = 28 pairs), lupus nephritis (n = 10), several controlled exposure datasets, and a single-cell dose series. The paper lists dataset accessions and design annotations in Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1.
The audit tested one benchmark trajectory and five published transcriptomic signatures (response labels) in every analysable cohort. Each candidate label was evaluated using effect-size statistics (within-subject standardized dz) and compared to the exact minimum detectable effect set by the cohort design — the so-called detectability floor. The authors pre-registered a verdict taxonomy and deposited analysis scripts, adjudication ledgers, per-sample mapping tables, and other materials at Zenodo; some items have restricted access for reviewer use.
The detectability floor is the minimum effect size that a particular experimental design can detect with the available sample size, pairing, and variance structure. The audit adjudicated labels as detectable only when measured effect sizes cleared that per-design floor. Nominal statistical significance alone was not taken as sufficient if the observed dz did not exceed the design's minimum detectable effect.
Disease-state labels were consistently detectable in the audited cohorts. A primary example: an interferon signature decreased across all 10 juvenile dermatomyositis patients (p = 0.002) and accounted for 59.5% of the signature score variance. This contrasts with exposure and response-prediction labels, which generally failed to exceed their design floors in clinical cohorts.
No exposure label in any clinical cohort cleared its design floor. In juvenile dermatomyositis a methotrexate-matched prior label reached nominal significance but did not clear its floor (dz = -0.80; confidence interval spanned the detectability threshold). Exposure signals became detectable only in settings where both prior context and exposure intensity were favourable — for example, in a multi-day target-tissue series (dz = 1.24, q = 0.018) and in well-level pseudobulk measures in the single-cell dose series (dz = +3.70 with a floor of 1.80).
Controlled exposure experiments and the single-cell dose series demonstrated that where exposure intensity and experimental context increase the signal-to-noise ratio, exposure labels can clear the detectability floor. These cases contrast with routine clinical treatment intensities, which often produced effects that remained below the per-design threshold.
Across all audited cohorts, response-prediction labels failed in 14 of 15 cohorts (93%; descriptive binomial 95% CI 68–100). Of those failures, eleven were below their detectability floors and three were sign-reversed relative to expectations. The largest training cohort pooled to essentially no effect (dz = +0.07) and displayed heterogeneity (I2 = 69%). The authors also report that ordering of observed effect sizes tracked published AUCs monotonically, linking effect-size magnitude to reported classifier performance.
The findings suggest that under conventional treatment intensities used in the audited clinical cohorts, many exposure and response-prediction transcriptomic labels are either undetectable given typical study designs or replicate with inconsistent sign. By contrast, disease-state signatures are more robustly detectable. The authors conclude that part of the negative or irreproducible literature on treatment-response transcriptomics may reflect a design floor limitation rather than absence of biological effect.
This emphasizes the need to consider per-study minimum detectable effects during biomarker development, to report effect sizes relative to design-specific thresholds, and to use stronger or better-controlled exposure contrasts where the intent is to learn reproducible response signatures.
All datasets analysed are publicly available; accession details and design annotations are provided in the manuscript tables and supplementary materials. Analysis scripts, adjudication ledgers, mapping tables, and a pre-registered verdict taxonomy are deposited at Zenodo (doi:10.5281/zenodo.23123981) with materials accessible to reviewers and linked from the paper.
The authors declare no competing interests. The paper is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed; the authors state that ethical approvals and participant consents were obtained as required and reporting guidelines were followed.