MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021405914 · doi:10.1142/s0219720012500011

A METHOD FOR DISCOVERING COMMON PATTERNS FROM TWO RNA SECONDARY STRUCTURES AND ITS APPLICATION TO STRUCTURAL REPEAT DETECTION

2011· article· en· W2021405914 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Hua, Jason T. L. Wang, Xiang Ji, Ankur Malhotra, Mugdha Khaladkar, Bruce A. Shapiro, Kaizhong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthCancer Research Institute
KeywordsComputer scienceNucleic acid secondary structureComputational biologyRNAProtein secondary structureJavaSource codeTree (set theory)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceData miningBiologyGeneGeneticsMathematicsProgramming languageCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an ab initio method, named DiscoverR, for finding common patterns from two RNA secondary structures. The method works by representing RNA secondary structures as ordered labeled trees and performs tree pattern discovery using an efficient dynamic programming algorithm. DiscoverR is able to identify and extract the largest common substructures from two RNA molecules having different sizes without prior knowledge of the locations and topologies of these substructures. We also extend DiscoverR to find repeated regions in an RNA secondary structure, and apply this extended method to detect structural repeats in the 3'-untranslated region of a protein kinase gene. We describe the biological significance of a repeated hairpin found by our method, demonstrating the usefulness of the method. DiscoverR is implemented in Java; a jar file including the source code of the program is available for download at http://bioinformatics.njit.edu/DiscoverR.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational BiologySame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207