Can machine learning aid in identifying disease genes? The case of autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Discovering genes involved in complex human genetic disorders is a major challenge. Many have suggested that machine learning (ML) algorithms using gene networks can be used to supplement traditional genetic association-based approaches to predict or prioritize disease genes. However, questions have been raised about the utility of ML methods for this type of task due to biases within the data, and poor real-world performance. Using autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as a test case, we sought to investigate the question: Can machine learning aid in the discovery of disease genes? We collected thirteen published ASD gene prioritization studies and evaluated their performance using known and novel high-confidence ASD genes. We also investigated their biases towards generic gene annotations, like number of association publications. We found that ML methods which do not incorporate genetics information have limited utility for prioritization of ASD risk genes. These studies perform at a comparable level to generic measures of likelihood for the involvement of genes in any condition, and do not out-perform genetic association studies. Future efforts to discover disease genes should be focused on developing and validating statistical models for genetic association, specifically for association between rare variants and disease, rather than developing complex machine learning methods using complex heterogeneous biological data with unknown reliability.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".