Peer Review #1 of "Predicting the effect of variants on splicing using Convolutional Neural Networks (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutations that cause an error in the splicing of a messenger RNA (mRNA) can lead to diseases in humans.Various computational models have been developed to recognize the sequence pattern of the splice sites.In recent studies, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures were shown to outperform other existing models in predicting the splice sites.However, an insufficient effort has been put into extending the CNN model to predict the effect of the genomic variants on the splicing of mRNAs.This study proposes a framework to elaborate on the utility of CNNs to assess the effect of splice variants on the identification of potential disease-causing variants that disrupt the RNA splicing process.Five models, including three CNN-based and two non-CNN machine learning based, were trained and compared using two existing splice site datasets, Genome Wide Human splice sites (GWH) and a dataset provided at the Deep Learning and Artificial Intelligence winter school 2018 (DLAI).The donor sites were also used to test on HSplice tool to evaluate the predictive models.To improve the effectiveness of predictive models, two datasets were combined.The CNN model with four convolutional layers showed the best splice site prediction performance with an AUPRC of 93.4% and 88.8% for donor and acceptor sites, respectively.The effects of variants on splicing were estimated by applying the best model on variant data from the ClinVar database.Based on the estimation, the framework could effectively differentiate pathogenic variants from the benign variants (p = 5.9×10 -7 ).These promising results support that the proposed framework could be applied in future genetic studies to identify disease causing loci involving the splicing mechanism.The datasets and Python scripts used in this study are available on the GitHub repository at https://github.com/smiile8888/rna-splice-sites-recognition.
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 | 0.009 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.361 | 0.228 |
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".