Inferring binding specificities of human transcription factors with the wisdom of crowds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA motif discovery and, particularly, computational modeling of transcription factor binding motifs, has been a mecca of algorithmic bioinformatics for several decades. Here, we report the results of the largest open community challenge in Inferring BInding Specificities (IBIS), where participants all over the world were invited to construct binding specificity models from multi-assay experimental data for poorly studied human transcription factors. The submissions were rigorously tested against a rich held-out dataset. Benchmarking demonstrated a consistent advantage of properly designed deep learning models over traditional positional weight matrices and other machine learning methods. Yet, the positional weight matrices displayed a surprisingly strong performance out of the box, being only slightly behind the best deep learning models. A post-challenge assessment of a selection of other deep learning methods further solidified this finding. IBIS highlights the power of benchmarking in finding adequate DNA motif representations, emphasizes the pros and cons of various machine learning methods applied to DNA motif modeling, and establishes a rich dataset, benchmarking protocols, and computational framework for a fair cross-platform evaluation of future models of transcription factor binding motifs in DNA sequences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".