ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
A data-driven evaluation of optimization techniques in cell culture media.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationOptimizing cell-culture media for cultivated meat and cellular agriculture is both experimentally demanding and expensive. Traditional approaches use Design of Experiments (DOE) to iterate through candidate formulations until a satisfactory medium emerges. Data-driven methods, and in particular Bayesian optimization (BO), can reach higher objective function values (here, titer) with fewer evaluations than classical DOE. Prior comparisons of optimizers on cell-media data have, however, relied largely on computational simulations rather than measured formulations, leaving researchers without evidence-based guidance on which strategy to adopt.
resultsWe introduce two complementary benchmark protocols and apply them to six published cell-culture datasets. In the "Hide-the-Label" protocol each optimizer begins with only a partial view of the data and sequentially reveals hidden formulations, singly or in batches, reproducing the stepwise acquisition of costly laboratory measurements; the "Open Race" instead measures search efficiency of a method under a fixed evaluation budget. Both protocols were run across four generative surrogate classes [Gaussian process (GP), random forest, neural network, and Bayesian neural network], two difficulty regimes, and batch sizes of one to 20. GP-based BO was consistently the most sample-efficient strategy, locating hidden targets in substantially fewer evaluations than classical DOE designs or random search; its advantage narrowed but remained under injected noise and multi-modality, and optimizers built on more complex surrogates (deeper networks or adaptive ensembles) performed worse rather than better on these harder landscapes. We detail the mathematical basis of the benchmark, criteria for selecting suitable datasets, and how to obtain statistically robust conclusions in the presence of measurement bias and heterogeneity, and we provide a roadmap for selecting an optimization strategy in practice. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code and the benchmark datasets are freely available at https://github.com/Amii-Applied-AI/amii-cell-ag-tools/tree/main/active-learning-for-cell-media and archived at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21501659.
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.