2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2023.100793
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transcriptomic forecasting with neural ordinary differential equations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Beyond filling the gaps between measurement times, computational techniques for temporal analysis of cellular states provide the potential to predict the future state of multicellular systems. While machine learning from single-cell datasets can make these predictions for individual cell types 9,10 , they cannot account for changes resulting from cell-cell interactions. Moreover, these predictive methods are data-driven and unable to predict cellular states from prior biological knowledge or mechanism alone.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beyond filling the gaps between measurement times, computational techniques for temporal analysis of cellular states provide the potential to predict the future state of multicellular systems. While machine learning from single-cell datasets can make these predictions for individual cell types 9,10 , they cannot account for changes resulting from cell-cell interactions. Moreover, these predictive methods are data-driven and unable to predict cellular states from prior biological knowledge or mechanism alone.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given that many dynamical systems can be described using ordinary differential equations (ODEs), a logical approach to modeling GRNs is to estimate ODEs for gene expression using an appropriate statistical learning technique [3][4][5][6]. Although estimating gene regulatory ODEs ideally requires time-course data, obtaining such data in biological systems might be difficult.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, such methods impose several restrictions on the ODEs and cannot flexibly adjust to situations where the underlying assumptions do not hold; this increases the risk of model misspecification and hinders scalability to large networks, particularly given the enormous number of parameters necessary to specify a genome-scale model [10,11]. Other methods including Dynamo, PRESCIENT, and RNA-ODE are based on non-parametric approaches to learning regulatory ODEs, using tools such as sparse kernel regression [3], random forests [5], variational auto-encoders [7,12,13], diffusion processes [4], and neural ordinary differential equations [6,14], but these fail to include biologically relevant associations between regulatory elements and genes as constraints on the models. These latter models can be broadly placed into two classes based on the inputs required to estimate the gradient f of the gene regulatory dynamics, where f (x) = dx dt .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations