ReviewBioinformatics and biology insights2024
Advancing Regulatory Genomics With Machine Learning.
Review in Bioinformatics and biology insights, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, several machine learning (ML) approaches have been proposed to predict gene expression signal and chromatin features from the DNA sequence alone. These models are often used to deduce and, to some extent, assess putative new biological insights about gene regulation, and they have led to very interesting advances in regulatory genomics. This article reviews a selection of these methods, ranging from linear models to random forests, kernel methods, and more advanced deep learning models. Specifically, we detail the different techniques and strategies that can be used to extract new gene-regulation hypotheses from these models. Furthermore, because these putative insights need to be validated with wet-lab experiments, we emphasize that it is important to have a measure of confidence associated with the extracted hypotheses. We review the procedures that have been proposed to measure this confidence for the different types of ML models, and we discuss the fact that they do not provide the same kind of information.
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.