ArticleScientific reports2023
Benchmarking machine learning robustness in Covid-19 genome sequence classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- SubNExT: Towards accurate, efficient and robust gene expression classification for breast cancer subtyping.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- PRCFX-DT: a new graph-based approach for feature selection and classification of genomic sequences.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Exploring geometry of genome space via Grassmann manifolds.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2024Article
- Optimizing protein sequence classification: integrating deep learning models with Bayesian optimization for enhanced biological analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Article
- AI-powered COVID-19 forecasting: a comprehensive comparison of advanced deep learning methods.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2024Article
- Assessing the Resilience of Machine Learning Classification Algorithms on SARS-CoV-2 Genome Sequences Generated with Long-Read Specific Errors.Biomolecules · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented amount of sequence data of the SARS-CoV-2 genome-millions of sequences and counting. This amount of data, while being orders of magnitude beyond the capacity of traditional approaches to understanding the diversity, dynamics, and evolution of viruses, is nonetheless a rich resource for machine learning (ML) approaches as alternatives for extracting such important information from these data. It is of hence utmost importance to design a framework for testing and benchmarking the robustness of these ML models. This paper makes the first effort (to our knowledge) to benchmark the robustness of ML models by simulating biological sequences with errors. In this paper, we introduce several ways to perturb SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences to mimic the error profiles of common sequencing platforms such as Illumina and PacBio. We show from experiments on a wide array of ML models that some simulation-based approaches with different perturbation budgets are more robust (and accurate) than others for specific embedding methods to certain noise simulations on the input sequences. Our benchmarking framework may assist researchers in properly assessing different ML models and help them understand the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or avoid possible future pandemics.
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.