ReviewBioData mining2026
Exploring the use of machine and deep learning in genome-wide association studies: a comprehensive review.
Review in BioData mining, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advent of high-throughput sequencing technologies has generated increasingly large and complex genomic datasets, necessitating analytical approaches capable of capturing high-dimensional and potentially nonlinear genetic interactions. This situation has significantly impacted the entire field of Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS), whose primary goal is the identification of genomic traits and variants that are statistically associated with the risk of a disease. However, traditional GWAS methods may show reduced performance when applied to highly polygenic and nonlinear genetic architectures. Computational strategies from Artificial Intelligence (AI) and, in particular, from machine- and deep-learning may provide a powerful tool to overcome such limitations, especially by capturing nonlinear interactions and complex hidden regularities in large-scale data, which traditional GWAS approaches might overlook. To date, only a few approaches have been introduced and systematically assessed. In this review, we describe the main characteristics and limitations of standard statistical approaches for GWAS, the main uses of AI methods in computational genomics, and recent attempts to leverage AI strategies in GWAS. Particular attention will be devoted to key issues, such as the interpretability of methods and results, and the curse of dimensionality. More specifically, the review presents 30 methods designed to leverage AI in GWAS, as well as presenting a comprehensive set of evaluation metrics for their performance, also providing references to the most frequently used databases, and biobanks. Overall, this work may serve as a starting point for both dry- and wet-lab researchers, aiming to extract deeper insights from genomic data by moving beyond traditional linear additive assumptions, and leveraging large-scale datasets through AI-driven approaches.
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.