Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37235578›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2023

Enabling interpretable machine learning for biological data with reliability scores.

K D Ahlquist, Lauren A Sugden, Sohini Ramachandran

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Interpretable Machine Learning for LPR Risk Estimation: A Single-Center Retrospective Case-Control Study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K D AhlquistCenter for Computational Molecular Biology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6812-9458
Lauren A SugdenDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3495-8359
Sohini RamachandranCenter for Computational Molecular Biology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9588-7964
Brown University · USDuquesne University · US

Funding

TRAINING IN MOLECULAR &CELL BIOLOGY &BIOCHEMISTRYT32GM007601 · NIGMS · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI MOWRY, KIMBERLY L. · 1985 to 2019
$6.4M
Population-genetic methods for inferring recent histories and targets of selection in the biobank eraR35GM139628 · NIGMS · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI Sohini Ramachandran · 2021 to 2026
$2.2M
Novel statistical methods to localize genomic elements underlying adaptive evolutionR01GM118652 · NIGMS · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI RAMACHANDRAN, SOHINI · 2016 to 2020
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM118652NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM139628NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007601
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning tools have proven useful across biological disciplines, allowing researchers to draw conclusions from large datasets, and opening up new opportunities for interpreting complex and heterogeneous biological data. Alongside the rapid growth of machine learning, there have also been growing pains: some models that appear to perform well have later been revealed to rely on features of the data that are artifactual or biased; this feeds into the general criticism that machine learning models are designed to optimize model performance over the creation of new biological insights. A natural question arises: how do we develop machine learning models that are inherently interpretable or explainable? In this manuscript, we describe the SWIF(r) reliability score (SRS), a method building on the SWIF(r) generative framework that reflects the trustworthiness of the classification of a specific instance. The concept of the reliability score has the potential to generalize to other machine learning methods. We demonstrate the utility of the SRS when faced with common challenges in machine learning including: 1) an unknown class present in testing data that was not present in training data, 2) systemic mismatch between training and testing data, and 3) instances of testing data that have missing values for some attributes. We explore these applications of the SRS using a range of biological datasets, from agricultural data on seed morphology, to 22 quantitative traits in the UK Biobank, and population genetic simulations and 1000 Genomes Project data. With each of these examples, we demonstrate how the SRS can allow researchers to interrogate their data and training approach thoroughly, and to pair their domain-specific knowledge with powerful machine-learning frameworks. We also compare the SRS to related tools for outlier and novelty detection, and find that it has comparable performance, with the advantage of being able to operate when some data are missing. The SRS, and the broader discussion of interpretable scientific machine learning, will aid researchers in the biological machine learning space as they seek to harness the power of machine learning without sacrificing rigor and biological insight.

Indexed as

GenomeMachine LearningReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID37235578
PMCPMC10249903
OpenAlexW4378473350

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.