ArticleScientific reports2024
Biologically meaningful genome interpretation models to address data underdetermination for the leaf and seed ionome prediction in Arabidopsis thaliana.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- End-to-end deep learning methods for genetic risk prediction of schizophrenia.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Leveraging AI and integrated genomic-enviromic prediction for intelligent sugarcane breeding.Plant communications · 2026Review
- DAGIP: alleviating cell-free DNA sequencing biases with optimal transport.Genome biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome interpretation (GI) encompasses the computational attempts to model the relationship between genotype and phenotype with the goal of understanding how the first leads to the second. While traditional approaches have focused on sub-problems such as predicting the effect of single nucleotide variants or finding genetic associations, recent advances in neural networks (NNs) have made it possible to develop end-to-end GI models that take genomic data as input and predict phenotypes as output. However, technical and modeling issues still need to be fixed for these models to be effective, including the widespread underdetermination of genomic datasets, making them unsuitable for training large, overfitting-prone, NNs. Here we propose novel GI models to address this issue, exploring the use of two types of transfer learning approaches and proposing a novel Biologically Meaningful Sparse NN layer specifically designed for end-to-end GI. Our models predict the leaf and seed ionome in A.thaliana, obtaining comparable results to our previous over-parameterized model while reducing the number of parameters by 8.8 folds. We also investigate how the effect of population stratification influences the evaluation of the performances, highlighting how it leads to (1) an instance of the Simpson's Paradox, and (2) model generalization limitations.
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.