Comparison of <i>P-RnaPredict</i> and <i>mfold</i>—algorithms for RNA secondary structure prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Ribonucleic acid is vital in numerous stages of protein synthesis; it also possesses important functional and structural roles within the cell. The function of an RNA molecule within a particular organic system is principally determined by its structure. The current physical methods available for structure determination are time-consuming and expensive. Hence, computational methods for structure prediction are sought after. The energies involved by the formation of secondary structure elements are significantly greater than those of tertiary elements. Therefore, RNA structure prediction focuses on secondary structure. RESULTS: We present P-RnaPredict, a parallel evolutionary algorithm for RNA secondary structure prediction. The speedup provided by parallelization is investigated with five sequences, and a dramatic improvement in speedup is demonstrated, especially with longer sequences. An evaluation of the performance of P-RnaPredict in terms of prediction accuracy is made through comparison with 10 individual known structures from 3 RNA classes (5S rRNA, Group I intron 16S rRNA and 16S rRNA) and the mfold dynamic programming algorithm. P-RnaPredict is able to predict structures with higher true positive base pair counts and lower false positives than mfold on certain sequences. AVAILABILITY: P-RnaPredict is available for non-commercial usage. Interested parties should contact Kay C. Wiese (wiese@cs.sfu.ca).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".