Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39787089›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2025

Eight quick tips for biologically and medically informed machine learning.

Luca Oneto, Davide Chicco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Best Practices for Machine Learning-Assisted Protein Engineering.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Luca OnetoDipartimento di Informatica Bioingegneria Robotica e Ingegneria dei Sistemi, Università di Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Davide ChiccoDipartimento di Informatica Sistemistica e Comunicazione, Università di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9655-7142

Funding

European Union – Next Generation EU programmeNational Recovery and Resilience Plan, Investment Partenariato Esteso
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning has become a powerful tool for computational analysis in the biomedical sciences, with its effectiveness significantly enhanced by integrating domain-specific knowledge. This integration has give rise to informed machine learning, in contrast to studies that lack domain knowledge and treat all variables equally (uninformed machine learning). While the application of informed machine learning to bioinformatics and health informatics datasets has become more seamless, the likelihood of errors has also increased. To address this drawback, we present eight guidelines outlining best practices for employing informed machine learning methods in biomedical sciences. These quick tips offer recommendations on various aspects of informed machine learning analysis, aiming to assist researchers in generating more robust, explainable, and dependable results. Even if we originally crafted these eight simple suggestions for novices, we believe they are deemed relevant for expert computational researchers as well.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyMachine LearningAlgorithmsHumansMedical Informatics

Identifiers

PMID39787089
PMCPMC11717244

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.