Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29700343›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

A closer look at cross-validation for assessing the accuracy of gene regulatory networks and models.

Shayan Tabe-Bordbar, Amin Emad, Sihai Dave Zhao, Saurabh Sinha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Core Perturbomes ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Neural Patterns of Social Pain in the Brain-Wide Representations Across Social Contexts.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Heterogeneous network approaches to protein pathway prediction.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shayan Tabe-BordbarDepartment of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0043-7133
Amin EmadCarl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States of America.
Sihai Dave ZhaoDepartment of Statistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States of America.
Saurabh SinhaDepartment of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States of America. sinhas@illinois.edu.

Funding

TRAININGU54GM114838 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI HAN, JIAWEI, SINHA, SAURABH · 2014 to 2017
$10.8M
Quantitative Modeling of Sequence-to-Expression RelationshipR01GM114341 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI SINHA, SAURABH · 2015 to 2018
$1.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM114341NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM114838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cross-validation (CV) is a technique to assess the generalizability of a model to unseen data. This technique relies on assumptions that may not be satisfied when studying genomics datasets. For example, random CV (RCV) assumes that a randomly selected set of samples, the test set, well represents unseen data. This assumption doesn't hold true where samples are obtained from different experimental conditions, and the goal is to learn regulatory relationships among the genes that generalize beyond the observed conditions. In this study, we investigated how the CV procedure affects the assessment of supervised learning methods used to learn gene regulatory networks (or in other applications). We compared the performance of a regression-based method for gene expression prediction estimated using RCV with that estimated using a clustering-based CV (CCV) procedure. Our analysis illustrates that RCV can produce over-optimistic estimates of the model's generalizability compared to CCV. Next, we defined the 'distinctness' of test set from training set and showed that this measure is predictive of performance of the regression method. Finally, we introduced a simulated annealing method to construct partitions with gradually increasing distinctness and showed that performance of different gene expression prediction methods can be better evaluated using this method.

Indexed as

Gene Regulatory NetworksGenomicsModels, BiologicalAlgorithmsComputational BiologyGene Expression ProfilingHumansNeoplasmsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID29700343
PMCPMC5920056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.