ArticleIEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics
Deep Learning Benchmarks on L1000 Gene Expression Data.
Article in IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene expression inference based on graph neural networks using L1000 data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Should we really use graph neural networks for transcriptomic prediction?Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Dex-Benchmark: datasets and code to evaluate algorithms for transcriptomics data analysis.PeerJ · 2023Article
- Cross-modal representation alignment of molecular structure and perturbation-induced transcriptional profiles.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2021Article
- Deep learning of pharmacogenomics resources: moving towards precision oncology.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gene expression data can offer deep, physiological insights beyond the static coding of the genome alone. We believe that realizing this potential requires specialized, high-capacity machine learning methods capable of using underlying biological structure, but the development of such models is hampered by the lack of published benchmark tasks and well characterized baselines. In this work, we establish such benchmarks and baselines by profiling many classifiers against biologically motivated tasks on two curated views of a large, public gene expression dataset (the LINCS corpus) and one privately produced dataset. We provide these two curated views of the public LINCS dataset and our benchmark tasks to enable direct comparisons to future methodological work and help spur deep learning method development on this modality. In addition to profiling a battery of traditional classifiers, including linear models, random forests, decision trees, K nearest neighbor (KNN) classifiers, and feed-forward artificial neural networks (FF-ANNs), we also test a method novel to this data modality: graph convolugtional neural networks (GCNNs), which allow us to incorporate prior biological domain knowledge. We find that GCNNs can be highly performant, with large datasets, whereas FF-ANNs consistently perform well. Non-neural classifiers are dominated by linear models and KNN classifiers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.