4.7 Article

Interpretable genotype-to-phenotype classifiers with performance guarantees

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40561-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Award of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship Master's award (NSERC)
  3. NSERC [262067, RGPIN-2016-05942]
  4. Canada Research Chair in Medical Genomics
  5. Calcul Quebec
  6. Compute Canada
  7. Laval University [nne-790-af, agq-973-ac]
  8. University of Waterloo [nne-790-af, agq-973-ac]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the relationship between the genome of a cell and its phenotype is a central problem in precision medicine. Nonetheless, genotype-to-phenotype prediction comes with great challenges for machine learning algorithms that limit their use in this setting. The high dimensionality of the data tends to hinder generalization and challenges the scalability of most learning algorithms. Additionally, most algorithms produce models that are complex and difficult to interpret. We alleviate these limitations by proposing strong performance guarantees, based on sample compression theory, for rule-based learning algorithms that produce highly interpretable models. We show that these guarantees can be leveraged to accelerate learning and improve model interpretability. Our approach is validated through an application to the genomic prediction of antimicrobial resistance, an important public health concern. Highly accurate models were obtained for 12 species and 56 antibiotics, and their interpretation revealed known resistance mechanisms, as well as some potentially new ones. An open-source disk-based implementation that is both memory and computationally efficient is provided with this work. The implementation is turnkey, requires no prior knowledge of machine learning, and is complemented by comprehensive tutorials.

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

4.7
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