Hidden sampling biases inflate performance in gene regulatory network inference

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-05

This study identifies and quantifies sampling biases within gene regulatory network inference methods, demonstrating how these biases can lead to inflated performance metrics and inaccurate conclusions.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-05 · read from full text

The paper studied why machine learning models for gene regulatory network (GRN) inference from single-cell transcriptomic data often report high accuracy that may not reflect realistic biological settings, focusing specifically on how negative regulatory interactions are sampled during supervised training and evaluation. Across multiple GRN benchmarking datasets, the authors found that common sampling strategies introduce node-degree biases that let models use trivial graph-structural cues rather than biological regulatory signals, and under these biased protocols, simple degree-based heuristics could match or exceed state-of-the-art graph neural network methods. The paper introduces a degree-aware sampling approach intended to remove these artifacts and yield more reliable performance assessments. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

ABSTRACT Accurate reconstruction of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) from single-cell transcriptomic data remains a major methodological challenge. Recent machine learning approaches, particularly graph neural networks and graph autoencoders, have reported improved performance, yet these gains do not consistently translate to realistic biological settings. Here, we show that a key reason for that is the way negative regulatory interactions are sampled for supervised training and evaluation. We find that widely used sampling strategies introduce node-degree biases that allow models to exploit trivial graph-structural cues rather than biological signals. Across multiple benchmarks, simple degree-based heuristics match or exceed state-of-the-art graph neural network models under these biased evaluation protocols. We further introduce a degree-aware sampling approach that eliminates these artifacts and provides more reliable assessments of GRN inference methods. Our results call for standardized, bias-aware benchmarking practices to ensure meaningful progress in supervised GRN inference from single-cell RNA-seq data.
Full text 1,207 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
ABSTRACT Accurate reconstruction of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) from single-cell transcriptomic data remains a major methodological challenge. Recent machine learning approaches, particularly graph neural networks and graph autoencoders, have reported improved performance, yet these gains do not consistently translate to realistic biological settings. Here, we show that a key reason for that is the way negative regulatory interactions are sampled for supervised training and evaluation. We find that widely used sampling strategies introduce node-degree biases that allow models to exploit trivial graph-structural cues rather than biological signals. Across multiple benchmarks, simple degree-based heuristics match or exceed state-of-the-art graph neural network models under these biased evaluation protocols. We further introduce a degree-aware sampling approach that eliminates these artifacts and provides more reliable assessments of GRN inference methods. Our results call for standardized, bias-aware benchmarking practices to ensure meaningful progress in supervised GRN inference from single-cell RNA-seq data. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00