A framework for improving microRNA prediction in non-human genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prediction of novel pre-microRNA (miRNA) from genomic sequence has received considerable attention recently. However, the majority of studies have focused on the human genome. Previous studies have demonstrated that sensitivity (correctly detecting true miRNA) is sustained when human-trained methods are applied to other species, however they have failed to report the dramatic drop in specificity (the ability to correctly reject non-miRNA sequences) in non-human genomes. Considering the ratio of true miRNA sequences to pseudo-miRNA sequences is on the order of 1:1000, such low specificity prevents the application of most existing tools to non-human genomes, as the number of false positives overwhelms the true predictions. We here introduce a framework (SMIRP) for creating species-specific miRNA prediction systems, leveraging sequence conservation and phylogenetic distance information. Substantial improvements in specificity and precision are obtained for four non-human test species when our framework is applied to three different prediction systems representing two types of classifiers (support vector machine and Random Forest), based on three different feature sets, with both human-specific and taxon-wide training data. The SMIRP framework is potentially applicable to all miRNA prediction systems and we expect substantial improvement in precision and specificity, while sustaining sensitivity, independent of the machine learning technique chosen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".