MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052915966 · doi:10.1089/106652704773416911

Use of Runs Statistics for Pattern Recognition in Genomic DNA Sequences

2004· article· en· W2052915966 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leo Wang-Kit Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health Research Council
KeywordsHidden Markov modelBivariate analysisExpectation–maximization algorithmMathematicsStatisticBinary numberStatisticsProbabilistic logicSufficient statisticMarkov chainPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMaximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the use of the finite Markov chain imbedding (FMCI) technique to study patterns in DNA under a hidden Markov model (HMM) is introduced. With a vision of studying multiple runs-related statistics simultaneously under an HMM through the FMCI technique, this work establishes an investigation of a bivariate runs statistic under a binary HMM for DNA pattern recognition. An FMCI-based recursive algorithm is derived and implemented for the determination of the exact distribution of this bivariate runs statistic under an independent identically distributed (IID) framework, a Markov chain (MC) framework, and a binary HMM framework. With this algorithm, we have studied the distributions of the bivariate runs statistic under different binary HMM parameter sets; probabilistic profiles of runs are created and shown to be useful for trapping HMM maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs). This MLE-trapping scheme offers good initial estimates to jump-start the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm in HMM parameter estimation and helps prevent the EM estimates from landing on a local maximum or a saddle point. Applications of the bivariate runs statistic and the probabilistic profiles in conjunction with binary HMMs for pattern recognition in genomic DNA sequences are illustrated via case studies on DNA bendability signals using human DNA data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207