ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2025
Negative dataset selection impacts machine learning-based predictors for multiple bacterial species promoters.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2025. 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.
- AI in biocuration: challenges, opportunities, and a roadmap for sustainable integration.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationAdvances in bacterial promoter predictors based on machine learning have greatly improved identification metrics. However, existing models overlooked the impact of negative datasets, previously identified in GC-content discrepancies between positive and negative datasets in single-species models. This study aims to investigate whether multiple-species models for promoter classification are inherently biased due to the selection criteria of negative datasets. We further explore whether the generation of synthetic random sequences (SRS) that mimic GC-content distribution of promoters can partly reduce this bias.
resultsMultiple-species predictors exhibited GC-content bias when using CDS as a negative dataset, suggested by specificity and sensibility metrics in a species-specific manner, and investigated by dimensionality reduction. We demonstrated a reduction in this bias by using the SRS dataset, with less detection of background noise in real genomic data. In both scenarios DNABERT showed the best metrics. These findings suggest that GC-balanced datasets can enhance the generalizability of promoter predictors across Bacteria. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The source code of the experiments is freely available at https://github.com/maigonzalezh/MultispeciesPromoterClassifier.
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.