ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
A systematic comparison of computational methods for expression forecasting.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Expression forecasting methods use machine learning models to predict how a cell will alter its transcriptome upon perturbation. Such methods are enticing because they promise to answer pressing questions in fields ranging from developmental genetics to cell fate engineering and because they are a fast, cheap, and accessible complement to the corresponding experiments. However, the absolute and relative accuracy of these methods is poorly characterized, limiting their informed use, their improvement, and the interpretation of their predictions. To address these issues, we created a benchmarking platform that combines a panel of 11 large-scale perturbation datasets with an expression forecasting software engine that encompasses or interfaces to a wide variety of methods. We used our platform to systematically assess methods, parameters, and sources of auxiliary data, finding that performance strongly depends on the choice of metric, and especially for simple metrics like mean squared error, it is uncommon for expression forecasting methods to out-perform simple baselines. Our platform will serve as a resource to improve methods and to identify contexts in which expression forecasting can succeed.
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.