Genomics researcher defends AI variant prioritization paper: validation already sufficient
anshulkundaje · x · 2026-09-18
In an ongoing thread about a disease variant prioritization paper, genomics researcher Anshul Kundaje acknowledges that more experimental validation and direct testing is needed — but argues the paper's presented evaluation is more than sufficient to support its claims: that the score is likely a useful variant prioritization tool and the resource serves as a useful lookup table for anyone.
The exchange reflects a broader debate over how much experimental validation computational scoring tools require before publication.
More from Research
- Idea: replicate JEV-style probability estimates via softmax of LLM logprobs — ngxson · 2026-09-18
- msign Is Wrong for Full-Rank SVD Power Iteration, but Correct for Top-k Subspaces — YouJiacheng · 2026-09-18
- Human Organoids Fill 91.9% of Cortex in Engineered Mice, Nature Paper Reports — ctjlewis · 2026-09-18
- Lambda's EdiVal-Agent uses an agentic judge for image editing evals, hitting 81.3% human agreement — TheZachMueller · 2026-09-18
- Tahoe-100M cell state dataset published in Cell, downloaded 600K+ times — anshulkundaje · 2026-09-18
- AlphaGenome author pushes back: variant prioritization gains are real contributions — anshulkundaje · 2026-09-18