Brouard C, Mourad R, Vialaneix N. Should we really use graph neural networks for transcriptomic prediction?
Brief Bioinform 2024;
25:bbae027. [PMID:
38349060 PMCID:
PMC10939369 DOI:
10.1093/bib/bbae027]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2023] [Revised: 12/20/2023] [Accepted: 01/17/2024] [Indexed: 02/15/2024] Open
Abstract
The recent development of deep learning methods have undoubtedly led to great improvement in various machine learning tasks, especially in prediction tasks. This type of methods have also been adapted to answer various problems in bioinformatics, including automatic genome annotation, artificial genome generation or phenotype prediction. In particular, a specific type of deep learning method, called graph neural network (GNN) has repeatedly been reported as a good candidate to predict phenotypes from gene expression because its ability to embed information on gene regulation or co-expression through the use of a gene network. However, up to date, no complete and reproducible benchmark has ever been performed to analyze the trade-off between cost and benefit of this approach compared to more standard (and simpler) machine learning methods. In this article, we provide such a benchmark, based on clear and comparable policies to evaluate the different methods on several datasets. Our conclusion is that GNN rarely provides a real improvement in prediction performance, especially when compared to the computation effort required by the methods. Our findings on a limited but controlled simulated dataset shows that this could be explained by the limited quality or predictive power of the input biological gene network itself.
Collapse