Open and Sustainable AI: challenges, opportunities and the road ahead in the life sciences

Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently seen transformative breakthroughs in the life sciences, expanding possibilities for researchers to interpret biological information at an unprecedented capacity, with novel applications and advances being made almost daily. In order to maximise return on the growing investments in AI-based life science research and accelerate this progress, it has become urgent to address the exacerbation of long-standing research challenges arising from the rapid adoption of AI methods. We review the increased erosion of trust in AI research outputs, driven by the issues of poor reusability and reproducibility, and highlight their consequent impact on environmental sustainability. Furthermore, we discuss the fragmented components of the AI ecosystem and lack of guiding pathways to best support Open and Sustainable AI (OSAI) model development. In response, this perspective introduces a practical set of OSAI recommendations directly mapped to over 300 components of the AI ecosystem. Our work connects researchers with relevant AI resources, facilitating the implementation of sustainable, reusable and transparent AI. Built upon life science community consensus and aligned to existing efforts, the outputs of this perspective are designed to aid the future development of policy and structured pathways for guiding AI implementation.

A Meta-analytical Comparison of Naive Bayes and Random Forest for Software Defect Prediction

Is there a statistical difference between Naive Bayes and Random Forest in terms of recall, f-measure, and precision for predicting software defects? By utilizing systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we are answering this question. We conducted a systematic literature review by establishing criteria to search and choose papers, resulting in five studies. After that, using the meta-data and forest-plots of five chosen papers, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the two models. The results have shown that there is no significant statistical evidence that Naive Bayes perform differently from Random Forest in terms of recall, f-measure, and precision.