MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract A010: Benchmarking 3D against 2D deep learning-driven image-based profiling for predicting biological relationships amongst genes

2025· article· en· W4412163814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matt De Vries, Reed Naidoo, Vicky Bousgouni, Georgia Mitsi, Chris Bakal

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingProfiling (computer programming)Computational biologyDeep learningGeneBiologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicineGeneticsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding how genes and proteins interact within the cell is essential for identifying drug targets and decoding signalling pathways. Recent advances, including foundation models such as OpenPhenom, Phenom-1 (Kraus et al., 2024) and Phenom-2 (Kenyon-Dean et al., 2024), have demonstrated the power of deep learning on 2D cell images to predict these biological relationships. However, such approaches remain limited by their inability to capture the full complexity of three-dimensional cell structure. Here, we benchmark a 3D morphology-based deep learning pipeline—Sentinal4DOne—against these state-of-the-art 2D imaging approaches, demonstrating a significant performance advantage in recovering known biochemical networks.Sentinal4DOne applies MorphoMIL, a multiple-instance learning framework recently published in Cell Systems (De Vries et al., 2025; PMID: 40112779), to a new 3D imaging dataset of over 35,000 melanoma cells subjected to RNA interference targeting genes from the Rho GTPase signalling axis, including RhoGEFs, RhoGAPs, and Rho-family GTPases. Using oblique plane light-sheet microscopy, single-cell shapes were quantified as point clouds and processed through a Dynamic FoldingNet encoder to extract geometric features. These were passed to the MorphoMIL model to generate compound-specific morphological embeddings. For each gene knockdown, we measured similarity to small-molecule phenotypes and calculated a profile which was the similarity to 8 different chemical compounds. These profiles were then used to predict interaction networks by ranking high-similarity gene pairs.To evaluate performance, we calculated recall scores against curated gold-standard databases including CORUM, Reactome, SIGNOR, and STRING, following the benchmarking strategy in Schubert et al., PLOS Comput Biol, 2023. Sentinal4DOne achieved consistently higher recall than all competing approaches. Compared to CellProfiler-derived features from the JUMP Cell Painting cp0016 dataset, our 3D morphological features achieved over 2× improvement in recall across all databases. Moreover, Sentinal4DOne outperformed Recursion’s OpenPhenom model, PerkinElmer’s Columbus platform, and our earlier 2D-based model, SentinalZero (Bousgouni et al., 2022; PMID: 36039362).These results highlight the power of 3D morphology as a biologically meaningful descriptor of perturbation. Not only do 3D shape-based models better capture heterogeneous cell states, they also enable more accurate inference of functional and physical gene relationships. By mapping protein networks from imaging data with higher precision, Sentinal4DOne represents a significant advance in phenotypic screening and target discovery pipelines. Citation Format: Matt De Vries, Reed Naidoo, Vicky Bousgouni, Georgia Mitsi, Chris Bakal. Benchmarking 3D against 2D deep learning-driven image-based profiling for predicting biological relationships amongst genes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; 2025 Jul 10-12; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(13_Suppl):Abstract nr A010.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicGene expression and cancer classification→French-language works237,207→