Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37353532›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

An automated framework for evaluation of deep learning models for splice site predictions.

Amin Zabardast, Elif Güney Tamer, Yeşim Aydın Son, Arif Yılmaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. WormCNN-Assisted Establishment and Analysis of Glycation Stress Models inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Amin Zabardast *Department of Health Informatics, Graduate School of Informatics, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Elif Güney Tamer *Department of Health Informatics, Graduate School of Informatics, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Yeşim Aydın SonDepartment of Health Informatics, Graduate School of Informatics, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Arif YılmazInstitute of Data Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. a.yilmaz@maastrichtuniversity.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A novel framework for the automated evaluation of various deep learning-based splice site detectors is presented. The framework eliminates time-consuming development and experimenting activities for different codebases, architectures, and configurations to obtain the best models for a given RNA splice site dataset. RNA splicing is a cellular process in which pre-mRNAs are processed into mature mRNAs and used to produce multiple mRNA transcripts from a single gene sequence. Since the advancement of sequencing technologies, many splice site variants have been identified and associated with the diseases. So, RNA splice site prediction is essential for gene finding, genome annotation, disease-causing variants, and identification of potential biomarkers. Recently, deep learning models performed highly accurately for classifying genomic signals. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and its bidirectional version (BLSTM), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and its bidirectional version (BGRU) are promising models. During genomic data analysis, CNN's locality feature helps where each nucleotide correlates with other bases in its vicinity. In contrast, BLSTM can be trained bidirectionally, allowing sequential data to be processed from forward and reverse directions. Therefore, it can process 1-D encoded genomic data effectively. Even though both methods have been used in the literature, a performance comparison was missing. To compare selected models under similar conditions, we have created a blueprint for a series of networks with five different levels. As a case study, we compared CNN and BLSTM models' learning capabilities as building blocks for RNA splice site prediction in two different datasets. Overall, CNN performed better with [Formula: see text] accuracy ([Formula: see text] improvement), [Formula: see text] F1 score ([Formula: see text] improvement), and [Formula: see text] AUC-PR ([Formula: see text] improvement) in human splice site prediction. Likewise, an outperforming performance with [Formula: see text] accuracy ([Formula: see text] improvement), [Formula: see text] F1 score ([Formula: see text] improvement), and [Formula: see text] AUC-PR ([Formula: see text] improvement) is achieved in C. elegans splice site prediction. Overall, our results showed that CNN learns faster than BLSTM and BGRU. Moreover, CNN performs better at extracting sequence patterns than BLSTM and BGRU. To our knowledge, no other framework is developed explicitly for evaluating splice detection models to decide the best possible model in an automated manner. So, the proposed framework and the blueprint would help selecting different deep learning models, such as CNN vs. BLSTM and BGRU, for splice site analysis or similar classification tasks and in different problems.

Indexed as

Caenorhabditis elegansDeep LearningAnimalsData AnalysisGenomicsHumansRNA, MessengerRNA Splice SitesRNA, MessengerRNA Splice Sites

Identifiers

PMID37353532
PMCPMC10290104

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.