ArticleBioinformatics advances2026
Inductive bias influences the spatial scale of biological features learned from images.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Motivation: The inductive bias of a deep learning model influences the features it extracts from biological images, making model selection a critical scientific decision. We systematically compare representations learned from scratch without pre-training by convolutional neural networks (CNNs), vision transformers, and Fourier neural operators (FNOs)-an emerging architecture largely unexplored in biological imaging-to determine how their distinct learning mechanisms shape feature learning from spatiotemporal data. Results: Using a self-supervised representation learning framework on microscopy images of 2D gastruloids, as well as a distinct synthetic tumor image dataset, we show that while CNNs and FNOs achieve comparable accuracy on biological tasks, they learn features at different scales. Visual interpretation methods reveal that CNNs prioritize local, fine-grained details, whereas FNOs capture global, low-frequency structures, in line with overall population morphology. These findings demonstrate that deep learning model architecture is a choice that shapes the biological scale of extracted features, highlighting the need to align a model's inductive bias with the scientific question. Availability and implementation: All source code for the representation learning model, the tumor simulation dataset, and the gastruloid microscopy imaging dataset are available at the corresponding DOIs: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19672838, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19361370, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19373112, respectively.
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.