ArticleGenes2025
Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning Models for Predicting Causative Regulatory Variants.
Article in Genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Deep Learning Models of Gene Regulation to Guide Drug Prioritization.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Identifying severe COVID-19 risk variants modulating enhancer reporter activity in lung cells.PLoS genetics · 2026Article
- Using Deep Learning Models of Gene Regulation to Guide Drug Prioritization.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The DNA dialect: a comprehensive guide to pretrained genomic language models.Molecular systems biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveGenome-wide association studies (GWAS) have linked many noncoding variants to complex traits and diseases, but distinguishing as-sociation from causation remains difficult. Deep learning models-particularly CNN- and Transformer-based architectures-are widely used for this task, yet comparisons are hindered by inconsistent benchmarks and evaluation practices. We aimed to establish a standardized assessment of leading models for predicting variant effects in enhancers and for prioritizing putative causal SNPs.
methodsWe evaluated state-of-the-art deep learning models under consistent training and evaluation conditions on nine datasets derived from MPRA, raQTL, and eQTL ex-periments. These datasets profile the regulatory impact of 54,859 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across four human cell lines. Performance was compared for two related tasks: predicting the direction and magnitude of regulatory impact in enhancers and identifying likely causal SNPs within linkage disequilibrium (LD) blocks. We addi-tionally assessed the effect of fine-tuning on Transformer-based models and the impact of certainty in experimental results.
resultsCNN models such as TREDNet and SEI performed best for predicting the reg-ulatory impact of SNPs in enhancers. Hybrid CNN-Transformer models (e.g., Borzoi) performed best for causal variant prioritization within LD blocks. Fine-tuning benefits Transformers but remains insufficient to close the performance gap.
conclusionsUnder a unified benchmark, CNN architectures are most reliable for esti-mating enhancer regulatory effects of SNPs, while hybrid CNN-Transformer models are superior for causal SNP identification within LD. These comparisons help guide model selection for variant-effect prediction in noncoding regions.
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.