ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Benchmarking interpretability of deep learning for predictive genomics: Recall, precision, and variability of feature attribution.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating deep learning and pangenomics to recover missing heritability from wild structural variations.BMC genomics · 2026Review
- Deep learning fusion of multi-channel imaging from polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep neural networks can model the nonlinear architecture of polygenic traits, yet the reliability of attribution methods to identify the genetic variants driving model predictions remains uncertain. We introduce a benchmarking framework that quantifies three aspects of interpretability: attribution recall, attribution precision, and stability, and apply it to deep learning models trained on UK Biobank genotypes for standing height prediction. After quality control, feed-forward neural networks were trained on more than half a million autosomal variants from approximately 300 thousand participants and evaluated using four attribution algorithms (Saliency, Gradient SHAP, DeepLIFT, Integrated Gradients) with and without SmoothGrad noise averaging. Attribution recall was assessed using synthetic spike-in variants with known additive, dominant, recessive, and epistatic effects, enabling direct measurement of sensitivity to diverse genetic architectures. Attribution precision estimated specificity using an equal number of null decoy variants that preserved allele structure while disrupting genotype-phenotype correspondence. Stability was measured by the consistency of variant-level attributions across an ensemble of independently trained models. SmoothGrad increased average recall across effect types by approximately 0.16 at the top 1% of the most highly attributed variants and improved average precision by about 0.06 at the same threshold, while stability remained comparable with median relative standard deviations of 0.4 to 0.5 across methods. Among the evaluated attribution methods, Saliency achieved the highest composite score, indicating that its simple gradient formulation provided the best overall balance of recall, precision, and stability.
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.