Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33525807›Full record

ArticleEmerging topics in life sciences2017

Computational biology: deep learning.

William Jones, Kaur Alasoo, Dmytro Fishman, Leopold Parts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging topics in life sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. In-silico generation of high-dimensional immune response data in patients using a deep neural network.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2023
    Article
  9. Robotic data acquisition with deep learning enables cell image-based prediction of transcriptomic phenotypes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Prediction of Genetic Groups withinJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  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.

William JonesWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, U.K.
Kaur AlasooWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, U.K.
Dmytro FishmanInstitute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Leopold PartsWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, U.K.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning is the trendiest tool in a computational biologist's toolbox. This exciting class of methods, based on artificial neural networks, quickly became popular due to its competitive performance in prediction problems. In pioneering early work, applying simple network architectures to abundant data already provided gains over traditional counterparts in functional genomics, image analysis, and medical diagnostics. Now, ideas for constructing and training networks and even off-the-shelf models have been adapted from the rapidly developing machine learning subfield to improve performance in a range of computational biology tasks. Here, we review some of these advances in the last 2 years.

Indexed as

bioinformaticscomputational biologydeep learning

Identifiers

PMID33525807
PMCPMC7289034

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.