GENRATE: A GENERATIVE MODEL THAT FINDS AND SCORES NEW GENES AND EXONS IN GENOMIC MICROARRAY DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, researchers have made some progress in using microarrays to validate predicted exons in genome sequence and find new gene structures. However, current methods rely on separately making threshold-based decisions on intensity of expression, similarity of expression profiles, and arrangements of exons in the genome. We have taken a Bayesian approach and developed GenRate, a generative model that accounts for both genome-wide expression data taken from multiple conditions (e.g. tissues) and co-location and density of probes in DNA sequence data. GenRate balances probabilistic evidence derived from different sources and outputs scores (log-likelihoods) for each gene model, enabling the estimation of false-positive and false-negative rates. The model has a number of local minima that is exponential in the length of the DNA sequence data, so direct application of the EM learning algorithm produces poor results. We describe a novel way of parameterizing the model using examples from the data set, so that good solutions are found using an efficient algorithm. We apply GenRate to a subset of mouse genome-wide expression data that we have created, and discuss the statistical significance of the genes found by GenRate. Three of the highest-ranking gene structures found by GenRate, each containing thousands of bases from the genome, are confirmed using RT-PCR experiments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".