4.6 Article

Interpretable machine learning for genomics

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 141, 期 9, 页码 1499-1513

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-021-02387-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. ONR [N62909-19-1-2096]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article introduces the application of interpretable machine learning in genomics, aiming to improve the understanding of predictions made by machine learning models. Through defining concepts, promoting methodologies, classifying approaches, surveying examples, and examining challenges, it demonstrates the importance of iML for precision medicine and provides directions for future research.
High-throughput technologies such as next-generation sequencing allow biologists to observe cell function with unprecedented resolution, but the resulting datasets are too large and complicated for humans to understand without the aid of advanced statistical methods. Machine learning (ML) algorithms, which are designed to automatically find patterns in data, are well suited to this task. Yet these models are often so complex as to be opaque, leaving researchers with few clues about underlying mechanisms. Interpretable machine learning (iML) is a burgeoning subdiscipline of computational statistics devoted to making the predictions of ML models more intelligible to end users. This article is a gentle and critical introduction to iML, with an emphasis on genomic applications. I define relevant concepts, motivate leading methodologies, and provide a simple typology of existing approaches. I survey recent examples of iML in genomics, demonstrating how such techniques are increasingly integrated into research workflows. I argue that iML solutions are required to realize the promise of precision medicine. However, several open challenges remain. I examine the limitations of current state-of-the-art tools and propose a number of directions for future research. While the horizon for iML in genomics is wide and bright, continued progress requires close collaboration across disciplines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据