Deep learning in bioinformatics: introduction, application, and perspective in big data era
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deep learning, which is especially formidable in handling big data, has achieved great success in various fields, including bioinformatics. With the advances of the big data era in biology, it is foreseeable that deep learning will become increasingly important in the field and will be incorporated in vast majorities of analysis pipelines. In this review, we provide both the exoteric introduction of deep learning, and concrete examples and implementations of its representative applications in bioinformatics. We start from the recent achievements of deep learning in the bioinformatics field, pointing out the problems which are suitable to use deep learning. After that, we introduce deep learning in an easy-to-understand fashion, from shallow neural networks to legendary convolutional neural networks, legendary recurrent neural networks, graph neural networks, generative adversarial networks, variational autoencoder, and the most recent state-of-the-art architectures. After that, we provide eight examples, covering five bioinformatics research directions and all the four kinds of data type, with the implementation written in Tensorflow and Keras. Finally, we discuss the common issues, such as overfitting and interpretability, that users will encounter when adopting deep learning methods and provide corresponding suggestions. The implementations are freely available at https://github.com/lykaust15/Deep_learning_examples .
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it