ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2024
Methods for evaluating unsupervised vector representations of genomic regions.
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- LANTERN: TCR-peptide binding predictionPeerJ · 2026Article
- Modeling TCR-pMHC Binding with Dual Encoders and Cross-Attention Fusion.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 2025Article
- Atacformer: A transformer-based foundation model for analysis and interpretation of ATAC-seq data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Methods for constructing and evaluating consensus genomic interval sets.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Fast clustering and cell-type annotation of scATAC data using pre-trained embeddings.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Joint Representation Learning for Retrieval and Annotation of Genomic Interval Sets.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Representation learning models have become a mainstay of modern genomics. These models are trained to yield vector representations, or embeddings, of various biological entities, such as cells, genes, individuals, or genomic regions. Recent applications of unsupervised embedding approaches have been shown to learn relationships among genomic regions that define functional elements in a genome. Unsupervised representation learning of genomic regions is free of the supervision from curated metadata and can condense rich biological knowledge from publicly available data to region embeddings. However, there exists no method for evaluating the quality of these embeddings in the absence of metadata, making it difficult to assess the reliability of analyses based on the embeddings, and to tune model training to yield optimal results. To bridge this gap, we propose four evaluation metrics: the cluster tendency score (CTS), the reconstruction score (RCS), the genome distance scaling score (GDSS), and the neighborhood preserving score (NPS). The CTS and RCS statistically quantify how well region embeddings can be clustered and how well the embeddings preserve information in training data. The GDSS and NPS exploit the biological tendency of regions close in genomic space to have similar biological functions; they measure how much such information is captured by individual region embeddings in a set. We demonstrate the utility of these statistical and biological scores for evaluating unsupervised genomic region embeddings and provide guidelines for learning reliable embeddings.
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.