Artificial intelligence and deep learning algorithms for epigenetic sequence analysis: A review for epigeneticists and AI experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epigenetics encompasses mechanisms that can alter the expression of genes without changing the underlying genetic sequence. The epigenetic regulation of gene expression is initiated and sustained by several mechanisms such as DNA methylation, histone modifications, chromatin conformation, and non-coding RNA. The changes in gene regulation and expression can manifest in the form of various diseases and disorders such as cancer and congenital deformities. Over the last few decades, high-throughput experimental approaches have been used to identify and understand epigenetic changes, but these laboratory experimental approaches and biochemical processes are time-consuming and expensive. To overcome these challenges, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) approaches have been extensively used for mapping epigenetic modifications to their phenotypic manifestations. In this paper we provide a narrative review of published research on AI models trained on epigenomic data to address a variety of problems such as prediction of disease markers, gene expression, enhancer-promoter interaction, and chromatin states. The purpose of this review is twofold as it is addressed to both AI experts and epigeneticists. For AI researchers, we provided a taxonomy of epigenetics research problems that can benefit from an AI-based approach. For epigeneticists, given each of the above problems we provide a list of candidate AI solutions in the literature. We have also identified several gaps in the literature, research challenges, and recommendations to address these challenges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".