ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Should we really use graph neural networks for transcriptomic prediction?
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-intensive immune network modelling for One Health.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- HABiC: an algorithm based on the exact computation of the Kantorovich-Rubinstein optimizer for binary classification in transcriptomics.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of gene expression profiling by statistical and machine learning approaches.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Drug response in the era of precision medicine: A methodological review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Review
- Supervised multiple kernel learning approaches for multi-omics data integration.BioData mining · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The recent development of deep learning methods have undoubtedly led to great improvement in various machine learning tasks, especially in prediction tasks. This type of methods have also been adapted to answer various problems in bioinformatics, including automatic genome annotation, artificial genome generation or phenotype prediction. In particular, a specific type of deep learning method, called graph neural network (GNN) has repeatedly been reported as a good candidate to predict phenotypes from gene expression because its ability to embed information on gene regulation or co-expression through the use of a gene network. However, up to date, no complete and reproducible benchmark has ever been performed to analyze the trade-off between cost and benefit of this approach compared to more standard (and simpler) machine learning methods. In this article, we provide such a benchmark, based on clear and comparable policies to evaluate the different methods on several datasets. Our conclusion is that GNN rarely provides a real improvement in prediction performance, especially when compared to the computation effort required by the methods. Our findings on a limited but controlled simulated dataset shows that this could be explained by the limited quality or predictive power of the input biological gene network itself.
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.