geneRNIB: a living benchmark for gene regulatory network inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) underpin cellular identity and function, playing a key role in health and disease. GRN inference has received substantial attention, motivating systematic benchmarking. Despite various benchmarking efforts, existing studies remain limited in the number of methods, datasets, and metrics, fail to capture the context-specific nature of regulatory interactions across biological conditions, and are constrained by the absence of a reliable ground truth. Here, we introduce geneRNIB, a comprehensive GRN inference benchmarking framework built on three key principles: continuous integration, context-specific evaluation, and holistic assessment in the absence of a true reference network. geneRNIB enables the seamless incorporation of new algorithms, datasets, and evaluation metrics to reflect ongoing developments. In the current version, we systematically integrated and assessed 12 GRN inference methods, spanning single- and multiomics approaches across 11 datasets including thousands of perturbation scenarios. We introduced complementary metrics specifically designed to assess context-specific inference. Our findings indicate that simple models with fewer assumptions often outperform more complex pipelines across several perturbation-informed and predictive metrics. Notably, gene expression-based algorithms yielded better results than more advanced multimodal approaches. In addition, we identify several potential factors that influence the performance of GRN inference and offer actionable guidelines for the future development of the method. By addressing these critical limitations in existing benchmarks, geneRNIB advances GRN inference research and fosters progress toward personalized medicine.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".