Similarity-based transfer learning with deep learning networks for accurate CRISPR-Cas9 off-target prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transfer learning has emerged as a powerful tool for enhancing predictive accuracy in complex tasks, particularly in scenarios where data is limited or imbalanced. This study explores the use of similarity-based pre-evaluation as a methodology to identify optimal source datasets for transfer learning, addressing the dual challenge of efficient source-target dataset pairing and off-target prediction in CRISPR-Cas9, while existing transfer learning applications in the field of gene editing often lack a principled method for source dataset selection. We use cosine, Euclidean, and Manhattan distances to evaluate similarity between the source and target datasets used in our transfer learning experiments. Four deep learning network architectures, i.e. Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Feedforward Neural Networks (FNNs), and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), and two traditional machine learning models, i.e. Logistic Regression (LR) and Random Forest (RF), were tested and compared in our simulations. The results suggest that similarity scores are reliable indicators for pre-selecting source datasets in CRISPR-Cas9 transfer learning experiments, with cosine distance proving to be a more effective dataset comparison metric than either Euclidean or Manhattan distances. An RNN-GRU, a 5-layer FNN, and two MLP variants provided the best overall prediction results in our simulations. By integrating similarity-based source pre-selection with machine learning outcomes, we propose a dual-layered framework that not only streamlines the transfer learning process but also significantly improves off-target prediction accuracy. The code and data used in this study are freely available at: https://github.com/dagrate/transferlearning_offtargets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".