Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38349060›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024

Should we really use graph neural networks for transcriptomic prediction?

Céline Brouard, Raphaël Mourad, Nathalie Vialaneix

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Drug response in the era of precision medicine: A methodological review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Review
  5. 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.

Céline BrouardUniversité Fédérale de Toulouse, INRAE, MIAT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5574-7027
Raphaël MouradUniversité Fédérale de Toulouse, INRAE, MIAT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6700-5728
Nathalie VialaneixUniversité Fédérale de Toulouse, INRAE, MIAT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1156-0639

Funding

Raphaël Mourad
6 · The paper itself

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

Gene Expression ProfilingTranscriptomeComputational BiologyNeural Networks, Computerdeep learninggraph neural networkphenotype predictiontranscriptomic

Identifiers

PMID38349060
PMCPMC10939369

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.