Evaluating methods for the prediction of cell-type-specific enhancers in the mammalian cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying cell type-specific enhancers in the brain is critical to building genetic tools for investigating the mammalian brain. Computational methods for functional enhancer prediction have been proposed and validated in the fruit fly and not yet the mammalian brain. We organized the "Brain Initiative Cell Census Network (BICCN) Challenge: Predicting Functional Cell Type-Specific Enhancers from Cross-Species Multi- Omics" to assess machine learning and feature-based methods designed to nominate enhancer DNA sequences to target cell types in the mouse cortex. Methods were evaluated based on in vivo validation data from hundreds of cortical cell type-specific enhancers that were previously packaged into individual AAV vectors and retro-orbitally injected into mice. We find that open chromatin was a key predictor of functional enhancers, and sequence models improved prediction of non-functional enhancers that can be deprioritized as opposed to pursued for in vivo testing. Sequence models also identified cell type-specific transcription factor codes that can guide designs of in silico enhancers. This community challenge establishes a benchmark for enhancer prioritization algorithms and reveals computational approaches and molecular information that are crucial for the identification of functional enhancers for mammalian cortical cell types. The results of this challenge bring us closer to understanding the complex gene regulatory landscape of the mammalian brain and help us design more efficient genetic tools and potential gene therapies for human neurological diseases.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".