ArticleBMC bioinformatics2025
Class-balanced negative training sets for improving classifier model predictions of enhancer-promoter interactions.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnhancers regulate gene expression by forming DNA loops, thereby bringing themselves in close proximity to the target gene promoter. The human genome contains hundreds of thousands of enhancers, vastly outnumbering its 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes, highlighting the importance of enhancer-promoter interactions (EPIs) in gene regulation. Supervised learning models have been developed to predict EPIs, often using experimentally validated interacting enhancer-promoter pairs and artificially generated negative samples. However, the lack of reliable negative samples presents a challenge. Current methods randomly select pairs from unlabeled data, leading to class imbalance and reduced predictive performance. This imbalance, where enhancers and promoters are unevenly distributed between the positive and negative sets, hinders classifiers from learning meaningful patterns. Therefore, constructing more reliable negative samples is crucial for improving the accuracy of EPI predictions.
resultsWe developed two methods to generate class-balanced negative training sets for EPI classifiers: one based on maximum flow and the other on Gibbs sampling. We evaluated these methods with the TargetFinder and TransEPI classifiers across five and six cell lines, respectively. The trained models were tested using a common negative test set. Our negative training sets significantly improved the prediction performance across several metrics, including precision, recall, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that carefully designed negative samples can enhance the performance of EPI classifiers. Further advanced methods in generating negative EPIs should further improve prediction accuracy. The source code is available at https://github.com/maruyama-lab-design/CBOEP2 .
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.