Predicting phenotype from genotype: Improving accuracy through more robust experimental and computational modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational prediction yields efficient and scalable initial assessments of how variants of unknown significance may affect human health. However, when discrepancies between these predictions and direct experimental measurements of functional impact arise, inaccurate computational predictions are frequently assumed as the source. Here, we present a methodological analysis indicating that shortcomings in both computational and biological data can contribute to these disagreements. We demonstrate that incomplete assaying of multifunctional proteins can affect the strength of correlations between prediction and experiments; a variant's full impact on function is better quantified by considering multiple assays that probe an ensemble of protein functions. Additionally, many variants predictions are sensitive to protein alignment construction and can be customized to maximize relevance of predictions to a specific experimental question. We conclude that inconsistencies between computation and experiment can often be attributed to the fact that they do not test identical hypotheses. Aligning the design of the computational input with the design of the experimental output will require cooperation between computational and biological scientists, but will also lead to improved estimations of computational prediction accuracy and a better understanding of the genotype-phenotype relationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".