| Literature DB >> 30453947 |
Bing Feng1,2, William Hoskins2, Yan Zhang2,3, Zibo Meng2, David C Samuels4, Jiandong Wang2, Ruofan Xia2, Chao Liu1, Jijun Tang5,6,7, Yan Guo8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human Down syndrome (DS) is usually caused by genomic micro-duplications and dosage imbalances of human chromosome 21. It is associated with many genomic and phenotype abnormalities. Even though human DS occurs about 1 per 1,000 births worldwide, which is a very high rate, researchers haven't found any effective method to cure DS. Currently, the most efficient ways of human DS prevention are screening and early detection.Entities:
Keywords: Convolutional neural networks; Deep learning; Genotyping; Human down syndrome
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30453947 PMCID: PMC6245487 DOI: 10.1186/s12920-018-0416-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Genomics ISSN: 1755-8794 Impact factor: 3.063
Fig. 1Chromosome SNP maps to represent the intensities of all SNP site on HSA21. Each column represents the information of one single gene located on the chromosome. Each row represents adjacent SNP sites within the same gene. Therefore, each pixel of of the chromosome SNP map is used to represent the intensity of each SNP site of genes
Fig. 2Bi-stream CNN architecture taking two chromosome SNP maps as inputs The upper CNN branch model and the lower CNN branch model both take one chromosome SNP map as input image. We merged two branch CNN models into one CNN model in the fourth convolutional layer C4, which was also followed by a max-pooling layer. Detailed CNN architecture construction and configurations are available in the Method section
Evaluation metrics of bi-stream CNN and conventional machine learning models
| Models | Evaluation metrics of different models | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F-score | False-positive rate | False-negative rate | |
| Decision tree | 96.9(+-1.0)% | 94.1% | 95.4% | 94.6% | 2.2% | 8.0% |
| Random forest | 97.1(+-0.7)% | 94.4% | 94.9% | 94.7% | 1.9% | 8.1% |
| SVM | 96.7(+-0.9)% | 92.7% | 95.9% | 94.2% | 2.9% | 5.3% |
| Bi-Stream CNN | 99.3(+-0.4)% | 99.2% | 98.4% | 99.3% | 0.6% | 1.1% |
Evaluation metrics of different CNN models
| Models | Evaluation metrics of different CNN models | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F-score | False-positive rate | False-negative rate | |
| Bi-Stream CNN | 99.3(+-0.4)% | 99.2% | 98.4% | 99.3% | 0.6% | 1.1% |
| Single-stream CNN (ChrA) | 96.4(+-0.5)% | 94.7% | 84.0% | 96.4% | 5.2% | 3.2% |
| Single-stream CNN (ChrB) | 96.6(+-0.6)% | 88.7% | 92.9% | 96.6% | 11.2% | 4.3% |
Fig. 3Visualization of feature maps and trained filter weights from convolutional layer C1(shown in Fig. 2). Figure a, b, c and d in figure (a) represent four feature maps from convolutional layer C1 of lower branch CNN model (shown in Fig. 2). Figure e, f, g and h in figure (a) are the corresponding 3x3 filters weights of Figure a, b c and d. Figure a, b, c and d in Figure (b) represent four feature maps from convolutional layer C1 of the upper branch CNN model. Figure e, f, g and h in figure (b) are the corresponding 3x3 filters weights for Figure a, b, c and d
Fig. 4Detailed configurations and structures for each layer of the bi-stream CNN DS prediction/screening model