Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40360553›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluating the factors influencing accuracy, interpretability, and reproducibility in the use of machine learning classifiers in biology to enable standardization.

Kaitlyn M Martinez, Kristen Wilding, Trent R Llewellyn, Daniel E Jacobsen, Makaela M Montoya, Jessica Z Kubicek-Sutherland, Sweta Batni, Carrie Manore, Harshini Mukundan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

9 authors.

Kaitlyn M Martinez *A-1 Information Systems and Modeling, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States of America.
Kristen Wilding *T-6 Theoretical Biology and Biophysics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States of America.
Trent R LlewellynC-PCS Physical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States of America.
Daniel E JacobsenC-PCS Physical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States of America.
Makaela M MontoyaC-PCS Physical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States of America.
Jessica Z Kubicek-SutherlandC-PCS Physical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States of America.
Sweta BatniDefense Threat Reduction Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA, USA.
Carrie ManoreT-6 Theoretical Biology and Biophysics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States of America.
Harshini MukundanC-PCS Physical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States of America. hmukundan@lbl.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complexity and variability of biological data has promoted the increased use of machine learning methods to understand processes and predict outcomes. These same features complicate reliable, reproducible, interpretable, and responsible use of such methods, resulting in questionable relevance of the derived. outcomes. Here we systematically explore challenges associated with applying machine learning to predict and understand biological processes using a well- characterized in vitro experimental system. We evaluated factors that vary while applying machine learning classifers: (1) type of biochemical signature (transcripts vs. proteins), (2) data curation methods (pre- and post-processing), and (3) choice of machine learning classifier. Using accuracy, generalizability, interpretability, and reproducibility as metrics, we found that the above factors significantly mod- ulate outcomes even within a simple model system. Our results caution against the unregulated use of machine learning methods in the biological sciences, and strongly advocate the need for data standards and validation tool-kits for such studies.

Indexed as

Machine LearningHumansReproducibility of ResultsBiological dataLipopolysaccharideMachine learningStandardization

Identifiers

PMID40360553
PMCPMC12075784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.