Can deep learning improve genomic prediction of complex human traits?
Open accessAbstract
The current excitement around artificial intelligence and the renewed interest in “deep learning” (DL) have been applied to the genetic analysis of complex traits; however, the performance of DL for genomic prediction of complex... The genetic analysis of complex traits does not escape the current excitement around artificial intelligence, including a renewed interest in “deep learning” (DL) techniques such as Multilayer Perceptrons (MLPs) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). However, the performance of DL for genomic prediction of complex human traits has not been comprehensively tested. To provide an evaluation of MLPs and CNNs, we used data from distantly related white Caucasian individuals (n ∼100k individuals, m ∼500k SNPs, and k = 1000) of the interim release of the UK Biobank. We analyzed a total of five phenotypes: height, bone heel mineral density, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and waist–hip ratio, with genomic heritabilities ranging from ∼0.20 to 0.70. After hyperparameter optimization using a genetic algorithm, we considered several configurations, from shallow to deep learners, and compared the predictive performance of MLPs and CNNs with that of Bayesian linear regressions across sets of SNPs (from 10k to 50k) that were preselected using single-marker regression analyses. For height, a highly heritable phenotype, all methods performed similarly, although CNNs were slightly but consistently worse. For the rest of the phenotypes, the performance of some CNNs was comparable or slightly better than linear methods. Performance of MLPs was highly dependent on SNP set and phenotype. In all, over the range of traits evaluated in this study, CNN performance was competitive to linear models, but we did not find any case where DL outperformed the linear model by a sizable margin. We suggest that more research is needed to adapt CNN methodology, originally motivated by image analysis, to genetic-based problems in order for CNNs to be competitive with linear models.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CNN performance was generally competitive with linear models like BayesB and BRR, but DL did not consistently outperform these models by a significant margin.
“Bellot et al. (2018) assessed the ability of CNN and MLP in predicting complex human traits and found that, in general, CNN performance was competitive with linear models like BayesB (Meuwissen et al. 2001) and Bayesian Ridge Regression (BRR) (Henderson 1984), although DL did not consistently outperform these models by a significant margin.”
From A review of multimodal deep learning methods for genomic-enabled prediction in plant breeding (2024) · cites this paper as Bellot et al. (2018)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 225
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Mikolov, T., K. Chen, G. Corrado, and J. Dean, 2013 Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv: 1301.3781v3 [cs.CL]. · arXiv
- Authors
- Bellot, P., de los Campos, G., & Pérez-Enciso, M.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics , Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
- Centre for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG) , Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) - Institut de Recerca i Tecnologies Agroalimentaries (IRTA) - Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) - Universitat de Barcelona (UB) Consortium, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
- ORCID
- Bellot, Pau
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-08-31
- Volume
- 210
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 809-819
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- PMC
- PMC6218236
- OpenAlex
- W2889104897
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 11.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Genetics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (SEV-2015- 0533, AGL2016-78709-R)
- National Institutes of Health
- Medical Research Council (MC_PC_17228)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM099992, R01GM101219)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
- Keywords
- deep learning, genomic prediction, complex human traits, convolutional neural networks, multilayer perceptron, Bayesian linear regression, UK Biobank, height, bone mineral density, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, waist-to-hip ratio, hyperparameter optimization, genetic algorithm, heritability
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Genotype, Humans, Software, Linear Models, Multifactorial Inheritance, Genomics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review