Likewise, you can spend 55 hours of GPU time to produce very different things. Can those 55 hours cure cancer? Definitely not. Can it pick up correlations with a small subset of proteins that are perhaps not representative of practical problems? Probably. Can it learn a pattern to tie your shoes, given all your life experiences tying them? Sure.

I asked the question to determine what is the impact of the task and dataset. Curing cancer is huge, tying shoes is not. What are the strengths and limitations?

This is a health dataset, there are many inputs and outputs to health (e.g., cell level, protein level, tumors, organs, etc.). In this case, it is mRNA focused, which is a broad category that translates to potentially immune responses like vaccines (exactly what kind of therapy, I’m not sure other than “25 species”). Once the model is trained, you can use it to solve real problems, perhaps to develop a therapy that makes its way to clinical trials and eventually actually treats some disease. The model by itself is useless without the ability to have that impact.

So for other examples, take any disease (e.g., Covid19), create a dataset to mirror that problem using some technique (e.g., Covid19 mRNA prediction of some sort), and solve it to create a treatment (e.g., get a safe and effective vaccine). Obviously, you can say the vaccine can be improved so it is not “solved”, but most people would be quite happy with a “almost cure for cancer” even if it wasn’t literally optimal (we don’t even know if a cure for cancer is possible).

My suggestion and question to the author is to outline what is the implications of the work rather than focusing on accuracy statistics that are meaningless without such context.