ArticlePloS one2023
Benchmarking variational AutoEncoders on cancer transcriptomics data.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Unsupervised Phenotyping of Atrial Fibrillation Using Variational Autoencoders in a Critical Care Cohort: The ATLAS-AF Study.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2026Article
- Mathematical Modeling in Cancer Metabolism: Tools for Translational Applications in Metabolism-Based Therapy.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Variational graph autoencoder for reconstructed transcriptomic data associated with NLRP3 mediated pyroptosis in periodontitis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Weighted-VAE: A deep learning approach for multimodal data generation applied to experimental T. cruzi infection.PloS one · 2025Article
- Considerations for building and using integrated single-cell atlases.Nature methods · 2025Review
- Detecting subtle transcriptomic perturbations induced by lncRNAs knock-down in single-cell CRISPRi screening using a new sparse supervised autoencoder neural network.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- An in-depth comparison of linear and non-linear joint embedding methods for bulk and single-cell multi-omics.Briefings in bioinformatics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep generative models, such as variational autoencoders (VAE), have gained increasing attention in computational biology due to their ability to capture complex data manifolds which subsequently can be used to achieve better performance in downstream tasks, such as cancer type prediction or subtyping of cancer. However, these models are difficult to train due to the large number of hyperparameters that need to be tuned. To get a better understanding of the importance of the different hyperparameters, we examined six different VAE models when trained on TCGA transcriptomics data and evaluated on the downstream tasks of cluster agreement with cancer subtypes and survival analysis. We studied the effect of the latent space dimensionality, learning rate, optimizer, initialization and activation function on the quality of subsequent downstream tasks on the TCGA samples. We found β-TCVAE and DIP-VAE to have a good performance, on average, despite being more sensitive to hyperparameters selection. Based on these experiments, we derived recommendations for selecting the different hyperparameters settings. To ensure generalization, we tested all hyperparameter configurations on the GTEx dataset. We found a significant correlation (ρ = 0.7) between the hyperparameter effects on clustering performance in the TCGA and GTEx datasets. This highlights the robustness and generalizability of our recommendations. In addition, we examined whether the learned latent spaces capture biologically relevant information. Hereto, we measured the correlation and mutual information of the different representations with various data characteristics such as gender, age, days to metastasis, immune infiltration, and mutation signatures. We found that for all models the latent factors, in general, do not uniquely correlate with one of the data characteristics nor capture separable information in the latent factors even for models specifically designed for disentanglement.
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.