Identify the stiffness of DNA via deep learning

Haiqian Yang; Liu Yang; Shaobao Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 13 references

Identify the stiffness of DNA via deep learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A convolutional neural network trained on Kirchhoff-rod simulations of supercoiled DNA reports 99.85% accuracy in classifying simulated fragments as stiff or soft, a result the authors take as evidence that stiffness is a learnable…

desk verdict Closed-loop simulation test shows only that a CNN separates images from a Kirchhoff-rod generator; the paper's claim to identify DNA stiffness is premature. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01268 v1 pith:KOGOO36V submitted 2019-08-04 physics.bio-ph

Haiqian Yang , Liu Yang , Shaobao Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.bio-ph

keywords DNAdetectionstiffnessKirchhoffelasticrodtheoryconvolutionalneuralnetworksupercoiledstericconfigurationpoint-of-carediagnosticsdeeplearning

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a computer can identify DNA by its mechanical stiffness rather than by its sequence, and gives a proof-of-concept in simulation. It generates images of supercoiled DNA fragments from the Kirchhoff theory of thin elastic rods, labels half stiff and half soft, and trains a convolutional neural network to classify them. On a held-out set of 4000 simulated images the network reaches 99.85% accuracy, which the authors read as evidence that the CNN has learned a notion of stiffness that is independent of the fragment's orientation. If the same features transfer to experimental images, stiffness could become a label-free marker for DNA detection in point-of-care diagnostics.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a two-part pipeline. First, the Kirchhoff theory of thin elastic rods, the standard continuum description of supercoiled DNA, supplies the equilibrium equations for internal force and moment; integrating the tangent vector along the 100-nm contour turns the rod's solution into a rendered steric-configuration image. Second, a 16-layer convolutional neural network maps those 224x224 images to a stiff/soft label, with batch normalization between layers and an adaptive learning-rate optimizer. The network's convolutional kernels are the part that is supposed to do the identifying: the paper shows that particular kernels and feature maps respond selectively to the stiff versus soft DNA images.

What would settle it

Run the authors' simulation and CNN procedure with one change: draw stiff and soft DNA from the same distribution of applied torsional rate, for example by fixing the external torque so both groups have 1 rad/nm twist, and vary only the bending modulus. If a retrained network no longer reaches near-perfect accuracy on held-out images, the original 99.85% figure was driven by torsion rather than stiffness. A second, cheaper check is to map the first-layer convolution kernels and saliency onto local twist density; if the activating feature is helical pitch rather than bend curvature, the classification is identifying torsion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that stiffness alone, encoded in the three-dimensional steric configuration of supercoiled DNA, is a sufficient image feature for a deep network to classify DNA fragments. Using the Kirchhoff elastic-rod equations with a bending modulus that differs by a factor of two between the two classes, the authors rendered 224x224 images of 100-nm DNA fragments, trained a 16-layer convolutional network on 16,000 images, and tested it on 4,000 new images. They report 99.85% classification accuracy, including on pairs of images that look very similar to a human eye, and they interpret the class-specific activation of feature maps as the network forming an orientation-invariant stiffness concept. The paper additionally argues that this image-based route avoids the accuracy limits of worm-like-chain fits to end-to-end distance and is fully automated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stiff and soft image classes differ only in DNA stiffness; in the simulation they also receive different externally applied torsional rates (1 rad/nm versus 0.5 rad/nm), so the network's 99.85% accuracy may be powered by twist rather than stiffness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If stiffness is a learnable, orientation-invariant image feature, DNA detection could be performed from pictures of molecules, for example AFM images, without sequence-specific probes or amplification.
Because stiffness varies with sequence and mechanochemical environment, an image classifier could in principle report on epigenetic states such as cytosine methylation, not just on which class a fragment belongs to.
The paper's suggestion to fold the governing rod equations into the network's loss function points to a physically informed CNN that could be trained on experimental images where labels are uncertain.
For long supercoiled DNA, where the Kirchhoff rod and worm-like-chain descriptions are trusted, the approach could extend to other curved or torsional nuclear filaments once the concept is transferred.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The 99.85% accuracy does not yet isolate stiffness: the soft and stiff populations were generated with different applied torsional rates (1 ± 0.1 rad/nm versus 0.5 ± 0.1 rad/nm) even though the text says the stress boundary conditions were the same, so the network could be responding to twist density rather than stiffness.
A decisive control would be to repeat the pipeline with both classes sampled from the same torsional-rate distribution while varying only the bending modulus; if accuracy falls, the original classifier was a torsion detector, and if it stays high, stiffness is confirmed as a usable image feature.
The physical-model loss-function suggestion is testable immediately on the simulation itself: adding the Kirchhoff equations as a soft constraint should make the learned representation agree with the rod solver's force and moment balance, and the resulting kernels could be compared with the unconstrained ones.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a proof-of-concept that a convolutional network can separate two classes of simulated DNA images. The 99.85% accuracy is real but measured on images from the same Kirchhoff-rod generator that created the labels. That's the whole finding. Anything beyond that — "identifying stiffness of DNA" as a diagnostic marker — is not supported.

What's new and worth a look: applying a standard VGG16 to elastic-rod DNA configurations is a new combination. The authors spell out the mechanics, generate 16,000 images with a clear stiff/soft distinction (modulus ratio 2:1), and test on 4,000 fresh simulated images. They also cite the relevant literature and, to their credit, admit in Sec. 3.2 that the network's robustness in real physical situations "should be further confirmed." That qualification belongs in the abstract and title, where it's missing.

The weak spots: the test set is closed-loop — the generator defines stiffness, so high accuracy mostly shows the network inverts the generator's geometry-to-stiffness mapping under ideal rendering. No AFM images, no independent coarse-grained model, no added noise or substrate effects. There are no error bars, no repeated runs, and no code or data released, so the 99.85% is a single number. Also, the binary stiff/soft task is a toy; real DNA stiffness is a continuum, and sequence-dependent mechanics are absent.

One point where I'd push back on the harsher take: the twist-rate difference (1 rad/nm soft vs 0.5 rad/nm stiff) is not an independent confound. The text says the same stress boundary conditions produced those rates, which is exactly what a factor-of-two stiffness difference should do. The CNN might be using the visible superhelical density rather than some local modulus, but that density is a stiffness-dependent property. The bigger issue is the closed-loop evaluation, not that particular twist-rate artifact.

Bottom line: as written, the evidence supports "classifies simulated Kirchhoff-rod images," not "identifies DNA stiffness." It's a thin but legitimate proof-of-concept. I'd send it to a serious referee — the question is real and the authors show they understand the mechanics — but I'd expect major revision: real or at least cross-model validation, code/data, variance reporting, and an abstract that matches the actual scope. For my own work, I wouldn't cite it yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes to identify the stiffness of DNA from images of its steric configuration using a convolutional neural network. DNA fragment configurations are generated from Kirchhoff thin-elastic-rod theory with two stiffness values (a factor of two apart), rendered as 224×224 images, and used to train a VGG16-based classifier. The authors report 99.85% classification accuracy on a separately generated test set of 4000 simulated images. They argue that this demonstrates the CNN learns the concept of stiffness, and they propose the approach as a promising, automated route to DNA detection, with potential combination with atomic force microscopy in the future.

Significance. If the central claim were established, a machine-learning method that identifies DNA stiffness from geometric images would be a useful proof-of-concept at the intersection of mechanobiology and deep learning, and the suggestion of embedding physical models in the loss function is a forward-looking idea. The paper is transparent about using a standard, classical simulation model and a standard architecture, which in principle makes the pipeline reproducible. However, the reported accuracy is obtained on a closed-loop simulation: the test images come from the same generator that defines the stiffness labels, and no experimental or independent-model validation is provided. The manuscript itself concedes in Sec. 3.2 that the robustness of the CNN in the physical situation should be further confirmed. As it stands, the result demonstrates that a CNN can separate two classes of simulated images generated with different stiffness parameters, but it does not support the title's and abstract's claim of identifying DNA stiffness in any physical or diagnostic sense.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 3.2 and Abstract] The central claim that a 99.85% accuracy means the CNN "identifies DNA stiffness" is not supported by the evidence. The test set is generated by the same Kirchhoff elastic-rod simulator that produced the training set, so the ground-truth labels are simulation parameters rather than independently measured physical properties. Accuracy on such a closed-loop test measures how well the network inverts the generator's stiffness-to-configuration mapping under ideal rendering. The manuscript's own Sec. 3.2 admits that "the robustness ... of the CNN in the physical situation should be further confirmed," yet the abstract and conclusion state without this qualification that stiffness-based identification is a promising approach for DNA detection. This mismatch between the evidence and the central assertion is load-bearing.
[Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 3.2] The reported accuracy is not contextualized against simple baselines, despite the presence of an obvious salient geometric difference between classes. The text states that the stiff and soft DNA have external torsional rates of 0.5 and 1.0 rad/nm, respectively, and Sec. 3.2 notes that "some of the soft DNAs were much more twisted than the stiff DNAs." A baseline such as counting contour crossings, measuring writhe, or training a linear classifier on pixel features would likely separate these classes almost perfectly. The twist-rate difference may be a mechanical consequence of the stiffness ratio rather than an independent confound, but without such a baseline the 99.85% accuracy does not demonstrate that the network has learned a general concept of stiffness.
[Sec. 3.1] The statement that "the learned features of the CNN had a meaning of the concept 'stiffness'" is unsupported. The observation that some feature maps are activated by stiff images and others by soft images only shows that the network found class-conditional features in the training distribution. This is true of any well-fitted classifier and does not establish that the network acquired a semantic or physical concept of stiffness. The claim should be substantially weakened or supported by generalization tests outside the training distribution.
[Sec. 2.3 and Sec. 3.2] The robustness claim is not documented quantitatively. The paper reports a single accuracy value, 99.85%, and states that the trained model "was proved robust through several rounds of identifications," but it omits the number of rounds, the variance of accuracy, the train/test split protocol, and whether the test fragments were disjoint realizations from the same simulator. Without these details, the reader cannot assess the statistical reliability of the headline number.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 2.1] The phrase "Same stress boundary conditions were exerted ... which resulted an external torsional rate of 1 ± 0.1 rad/nm ... on the soft and 0.5 ± 0.1 rad/nm on the stiff" is ambiguous: it should be clarified whether these are externally imposed twist rates or the twist rates that result from the same imposed stress, since the latter is the physically expected consequence of the stiffness ratio and should not be described as an independent boundary condition.
[Sec. 3.1] The paper does not specify how the 2000 stiff and 2000 soft test images were generated relative to the training images, for example whether different random orientations and initial conditions were used and whether any image augmentation was applied; this information is needed to interpret the reported accuracy.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical and minor language issues, such as "CRISP-Cas13a" instead of "CRISPR-Cas13a," "Combing DNA mechanics" instead of "Combining," and inconsistent spacing around accented characters in the references (e.g., "Hozá k"). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Fig. 1] The caption says "A & B. labelled DNA as the training set," which is ungrammatical; the caption should state that A and B show example stiff and soft DNA images with their labels, and should define the color coding used in H.
[Sec. 3.2] The comparison with the WLC-based semi-automated approach would be more informative if a quantitative accuracy of that approach on the same simulated images were provided; as written, the claimed advantage over WLC is not demonstrated empirically.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 99.85% accuracy is a closed-loop check of the Kirchhoff generator's stiffness parameter, not an identification of DNA stiffness; the central claim is therefore largely self-definitional.

self definitional [Abstract and Sec. 3.1]
"The steric configurations of DNA fragments with different stiffness were simulated by employing the Kirchhoff theory of thin elastic rods. We identified the stiffness of DNA with the trained convolutional neural network on the simulated image set. The identification accuracy reached 99.85%."

The labels 'stiff' and 'soft' are the modulus values fed into the Kirchhoff rod simulation, not independently measured properties of DNA. Training and test images are generated by the same model, so the test evaluates only whether the CNN inverts the generator's stiffness-to-geometry mapping. Sec. 3.1 confirms this: "'Stiffness', the varied parameter in the simulation, is the concept derived in physical models..." The claimed identification of DNA stiffness is thus defined by the same simulation that supplies the ground-truth labels.
renaming known result [Sec. 3.2]
"By convoluting the figure with kernels, the CNN-system identifies the stiffness of DNA from all the geometrical features and stiffness-relating information, whose accuracy is not limited by physical models."

This sentence presents the simulation-inversion result as a property of DNA. The only 'stiffness-relating information' available is the Kirchhoff-model-generated geometry from known input moduli; there is no independent AFM or sequence-based stiffness measurement. The accuracy is a measure of how well the network recovers the simulation's varied parameter, so renaming it 'identifies the stiffness of DNA' and claiming it is independent of physical models is a re-description of the closed-loop result, not an empirical prediction.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that all images are generated by the Kirchhoff thin-rod model and that stiffness is the parameter varied in that simulation. A CNN can indeed learn to classify such images with high accuracy on a holdout set from the same generator; that is a legitimate computational demonstration. The circularity lies in the presentation: the abstract, Sec. 3.1, and conclusion call this 'identifying the stiffness of DNA' and a 'promising approach for DNA detection,' although the test labels are defined by the simulation, not by any measurement of DNA stiffness. The twist-rate difference is not an independent confound, because the text states that the same stress boundary condition produces 1 rad/nm on soft and 0.5 rad/nm on stiff DNA, which is the expected factor-of-two consequence of the stiffness difference. The core issue is the closed-loop nature of the validation: the prediction accuracy reduces to recovering the generator's input parameter. The manuscript itself concedes in Sec. 3.2 that 'the robustness ... of the CNN in the physical situation should be further confirmed,' which is inconsistent with the unqualified conclusion. Because the computational classification is internally valid but the central DNA-identification claim is self-definitional, a moderate circularity score is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a simulation pipeline whose parameters are chosen by hand and whose output is used both to define labels and to evaluate the classifier. The most important assumptions are that Kirchhoff rod theory produces realistic DNA images, that the rendered pixels encode stiffness, and that the two classes differ only in stiffness. The last is violated by the differing torsional rates.

free parameters (6)

stiff/soft modulus ratio = 2
Soft DNA is assigned modulus E and stiff DNA 2E in Section 2.1; this ratio defines the ground-truth classes.
external torsional rate for soft DNA = 1 ± 0.1 rad/nm
Applied to soft DNA fragments in Section 2.1; differs from the stiff-DNA rate, confounding stiffness with twist.
external torsional rate for stiff DNA = 0.5 ± 0.1 rad/nm
Applied to stiff DNA fragments; this difference may be the actual cue the CNN learns.
initial axial torsional rate = 1.8 rad/nm
Set for all fragments before loading; no experimental basis is given.
DNA fragment length = 100 nm
Simulation length chosen in Section 2.1; no justification is provided.
DNA radius and Young's modulus = not stated
The inner moment formula in Section 2.1 depends on radius a and modulus E, but their numerical values are omitted.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Kirchhoff elastic rod theory is sufficient to coarse-grain long DNA and generate realistic steric configurations.
Section 2.1 invokes this to justify the simulation, but no comparison to experimental DNA images is made.
domain assumption The rendered 224x224 pixel images encode enough information about stiffness for a CNN to learn it.
The whole pipeline assumes the simulated renderings contain stiffness information; the paper does not analyze what the CNN uses.
domain assumption The two simulated classes differ only by stiffness and not by other parameters.
Section 2.1 assigns different external torsional rates to the two classes, so this assumption is violated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identify the stiffness of DNA via deep learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KOGOO36V

@misc{pith2026190801268,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identify the stiffness of DNA via deep learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KOGOO36V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01268}
}

read the original abstract

DNA detection is of great significance in the point-of-care diagnostics. The stiffness of DNA, varying with its sequence and mechanochemical environment, could be a potential marker for DNA identification. The steric configurations of DNA fragments with different stiffness were simulated by employing the Kirchhoff theory of thin elastic rods. We identified the stiffness of DNA with the trained convolutional neural network on the simulated image set. The identification accuracy reached 99.85%. The stiffness-based identification provided a promising approach for DNA detection.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

DELONG, M

ALIPANAHI, B., A. DELONG, M. T. WEIRAUCH AND B. J. FREY Predicting the sequence specificities of DNA- and RNA-binding proteins by deep learning. Nature Biotechnology, 2015, 33(8),

work page 2015
[63]

MOINOVA, H. R., T. LAFRAMBOISE, J. D. LUTTERBAUGH, A. K. CHANDAR, et al. Identifying DNA methylation biomarkers for non-endoscopic detection of Barrett's esophagus. Sci ence Translational Medicine, 2018, 10(424), eaao5848. OU, C. Y., S. KWOK, S. W. MITCHELL, D. H. MACK, et al. DNA amplification for direct detection of HIV-1 in DNA of peripheral blood mono...

work page 2018
[287]

KELLEY, D. R., J. SNOEK AND J. RINN Basset: Learning the regulatory code of the accessible genome with deep convolutional neural networks. Genome Research, 2016, 26(7),

work page 2016
[295]

PARK, S. J., T. A. T ATON AND C. A. MIRKIN Array -based electrical detection of DNA with nanoparticle probes. Science, 2002, 295(5559), 1503-1506. PETERS, J. P., 3RD AND L. J. MAHER DNA curvature and flexibility in vitro and in vivo. Q Rev Biophys, Feb 2010, 43(1), 23-63. SHI, Y., A. E. BOROVIK AND J. E. HEARST Elastic rod model incorporating shear and ex...

work page 2002
[717]

WATERS, J. T. AND H. D. KIM Equilibrium Statistics of a Surface -Pinned Semiflexible Polymer. Macromolecules, 2013, 46(16), 6659-6666. YUAN, C., H. CHEN, X. W. LOU AND L. A. ARCHER DNA bending stiffness on small length scales. Phys Rev Lett, Jan 11 2008, 100(1), 018102. ZEILER, M. D. ADADELTA: An Adaptive Learning Rate Method. Computer Science,

work page 2013
[831]

Pä RNAMAA, L

ANGERMUELLER, C., T. Pä RNAMAA, L. PARTS AND O. STEGLE Deep learning for computational biology. Molecular Systems Biology, 2016, 12(7),

work page 2016
[878]

ANDRADE, R

ARLUCEA, J., R. ANDRADE, R. ALONSO AND J. ARé CHAGA The Nuclear Basket of the Nuclear Pore Complex Is Part of a Higher -Order Filamentous Network That Is Related to Chromatin. Journal of Structural Biology, 1998, 124(1), 51-58. BAIR, E. AND R. TIBSHIRANI Machine learning methods applied to DNA microarray data can improve the diagnosis of cancer. Acm Sigkd...

work page 1998
[990]

KREMER, L. S., D. M. BADER, C. MERTES, R. KOPAJTICH, et al. Genetic diagnosis of Mendelian disorders via RNA sequencing. Nature Communications, 2017, 8, 15824. KUHN, L., H. Y. KIM, J. WALTER, D. M. THEA, et al. HIV-1 concentrations in human breast milk before and after weaning. Science Translational Medicine, 2013, 5(181), 181ra151. LI, J., A. M. CASSELL ...

work page 2017

Show all 13 references

[1058]

BRADY, G. W. AND D. B. FEIN X-ray diffraction studies of circular superhelical DNA at 300-10,000-A resolution. Nature, 1976, 264(5583),

1976
[2012]

ZHENG, J., L. I. ZHUANG, W. U. AIGUO A ND H. ZHOU AFM studies of DNA structures on mica in the presence of alkaline earth metal ions. Biophysical Chemistry, 2003, 104(1), 37-43

2003
[2014]

SKOLNICK, J. AND M. FIXMAN Electrostatic Persistence Length of a Wormlike Polyelectrolyte. Macromolecules, 2010, 10(5), 944-948. TRAVERS, A. A. The Structural Basis of DNA Flexibility. Philosophical Transactions Mathematical Physical & Engineering Sciences, 2004, 362(1820), 14...

2010
[2015]

CUMMINGS, B. B., J. L. MARSHALL, T. TUKIAINEN, M. LEK, et al. Improving genetic diagnosis in Mendelian disease with transcriptome sequencing. Science Translational Medicine, 2017, 9(386), eaal5209. FLETCHER, D. A. AND R. D. MULLINS Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton. Nature, ...

2017
[2017]

MANGHI, D

CASSINA, V., M. MANGHI, D. SALERNO, A. TEMPESTINI, et al. Effects of cyt osine methylation on DNA morphology: An atomic force microscopy study. Biochim Biophys Acta, Jan 2016, 1860(1 Pt A), 1-

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

DELONG, M

ALIPANAHI, B., A. DELONG, M. T. WEIRAUCH AND B. J. FREY Predicting the sequence specificities of DNA- and RNA-binding proteins by deep learning. Nature Biotechnology, 2015, 33(8),

work page 2015

[2] [63]

MOINOVA, H. R., T. LAFRAMBOISE, J. D. LUTTERBAUGH, A. K. CHANDAR, et al. Identifying DNA methylation biomarkers for non-endoscopic detection of Barrett's esophagus. Sci ence Translational Medicine, 2018, 10(424), eaao5848. OU, C. Y., S. KWOK, S. W. MITCHELL, D. H. MACK, et al. DNA amplification for direct detection of HIV-1 in DNA of peripheral blood mono...

work page 2018

[3] [287]

KELLEY, D. R., J. SNOEK AND J. RINN Basset: Learning the regulatory code of the accessible genome with deep convolutional neural networks. Genome Research, 2016, 26(7),

work page 2016

[4] [295]

PARK, S. J., T. A. T ATON AND C. A. MIRKIN Array -based electrical detection of DNA with nanoparticle probes. Science, 2002, 295(5559), 1503-1506. PETERS, J. P., 3RD AND L. J. MAHER DNA curvature and flexibility in vitro and in vivo. Q Rev Biophys, Feb 2010, 43(1), 23-63. SHI, Y., A. E. BOROVIK AND J. E. HEARST Elastic rod model incorporating shear and ex...

work page 2002

[5] [717]

WATERS, J. T. AND H. D. KIM Equilibrium Statistics of a Surface -Pinned Semiflexible Polymer. Macromolecules, 2013, 46(16), 6659-6666. YUAN, C., H. CHEN, X. W. LOU AND L. A. ARCHER DNA bending stiffness on small length scales. Phys Rev Lett, Jan 11 2008, 100(1), 018102. ZEILER, M. D. ADADELTA: An Adaptive Learning Rate Method. Computer Science,

work page 2013

[6] [831]

Pä RNAMAA, L

ANGERMUELLER, C., T. Pä RNAMAA, L. PARTS AND O. STEGLE Deep learning for computational biology. Molecular Systems Biology, 2016, 12(7),

work page 2016

[7] [878]

ANDRADE, R

ARLUCEA, J., R. ANDRADE, R. ALONSO AND J. ARé CHAGA The Nuclear Basket of the Nuclear Pore Complex Is Part of a Higher -Order Filamentous Network That Is Related to Chromatin. Journal of Structural Biology, 1998, 124(1), 51-58. BAIR, E. AND R. TIBSHIRANI Machine learning methods applied to DNA microarray data can improve the diagnosis of cancer. Acm Sigkd...

work page 1998

[8] [990]

KREMER, L. S., D. M. BADER, C. MERTES, R. KOPAJTICH, et al. Genetic diagnosis of Mendelian disorders via RNA sequencing. Nature Communications, 2017, 8, 15824. KUHN, L., H. Y. KIM, J. WALTER, D. M. THEA, et al. HIV-1 concentrations in human breast milk before and after weaning. Science Translational Medicine, 2013, 5(181), 181ra151. LI, J., A. M. CASSELL ...

work page 2017