MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving the performance of supervised deep learning for regulatory genomics using phylogenetic augmentation

2024· article· en· W4394582173 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Duncan, Jennifer A. Mitchell, Alan M Moses

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGenomicsPhylogenetic treeComputer scienceDeep learningSource codeSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceSequence (biology)Function (biology)Machine learningCode (set theory)Computational genomicsFunctional genomicsBiological dataComputational biologyGenomeBiologyBioinformaticsGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Supervised deep learning is used to model the complex relationship between genomic sequence and regulatory function. Understanding how these models make predictions can provide biological insight into regulatory functions. Given the complexity of the sequence to regulatory function mapping (the cis-regulatory code), it has been suggested that the genome contains insufficient sequence variation to train models with suitable complexity. Data augmentation is a widely used approach to increase the data variation available for model training, however current data augmentation methods for genomic sequence data are limited. RESULTS: Inspired by the success of comparative genomics, we show that augmenting genomic sequences with evolutionarily related sequences from other species, which we term phylogenetic augmentation, improves the performance of deep learning models trained on regulatory genomic sequences to predict high-throughput functional assay measurements. Additionally, we show that phylogenetic augmentation can rescue model performance when the training set is down-sampled and permits deep learning on a real-world small dataset, demonstrating that this approach improves data efficiency. Overall, this data augmentation method represents a solution for improving model performance that is applicable to many supervised deep-learning problems in genomics. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The open-source GitHub repository agduncan94/phylogenetic_augmentation_paper includes the code for rerunning the analyses here and recreating the figures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207