Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42561153›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026

Sparsity is all you need: rethinking biologically informed neural networks.

Isabella Caranzano, Corrado Pancotti, Cesare Rollo, Flavio Sartori, Pietro Liò, Piero Fariselli, Tiziana Sanavia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Isabella CaranzanoAI and Computational Biomedicine Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy.
Corrado PancottiHelmholtz Zentrum München, Helmholtz AI Central Unit, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764 Oberschleißheim-Neuherberg, Germany.
Cesare RolloDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 1, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Flavio SartoriAI and Computational Biomedicine Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy.
Pietro LiòDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, William Gates Building, 15 JJ Thomson Ave, CB3 0FD Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Piero FariselliAI and Computational Biomedicine Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy.
Tiziana SanaviaAI and Computational Biomedicine Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy.

Funding

Italian Ministry of University and Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biologically informed neural networks are increasingly adopted in bioinformatics under the premise that embedding biological knowledge into model architectures yields more accurate and interpretable predictions. This approach has driven a growing literature of pathway-informed models aiming to move beyond black-box learning by explicitly encoding biological structure. However, it remains unclear whether these models exploit biological knowledge or instead benefit from a different inductive bias. Here, we systematically investigate this question across 29 state-of-the-art pathway-informed neural networks by explicitly decoupling biological annotations from network architecture. For each evaluable model, we implement a structure-matched randomization protocol, in which pathway annotations are replaced with random associations while preserving sparsity and architectural constraints, allowing for a direct comparison under controlled conditions. Across multiple prediction tasks, datasets, and evaluation metrics, the randomized models consistently match or outperform their biologically informed counterparts. Moreover, pathway-informed models show no systematic advantage in interpretability: randomized models recover disease-associated biomarkers with comparable accuracy and yield highly correlated feature rankings. Our results reveal that the performance gains commonly attributed to biological pathway integration arise predominantly from sparsity-induced regularization rather than from biological knowledge itself. We provide a general evaluation workflow to test whether biological priors contribute predictive information beyond sparsity, offering practical guidance for the development of biology-aware neural networks. The code implementing the proposed methodology is available on GitHub at https://github.com/compbiomed-unito/Pathway_Randomization.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsHumansbiologically informed neural networkscancer genomicsmodel randomization analysismulti-omics integrationpathway-based deep learning

Identifiers

PMID42561153
PMCPMC13446513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.