MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075341611 · doi:10.1142/s0219720005001065

APPROXIMATE MATCHING OF STRUCTURED MOTIFS IN DNA SEQUENCES

2005· article· en· W2075341611 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia El-Mabrouk, Mathieu Raffinot, Jean-Eudes Duchesne, Mathieu Lajoie, Nicolas Luc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegular expressionPattern matchingAutomatonTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmGenomeMathematicsComputer scienceTime complexityPushdown automatonComputational biologyCombinatoricsBiologyGeneticsArtificial intelligenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several methods have been developed for identifying more or less complex RNA structures in a genome. All these methods are based on the search for conserved primary and secondary sub-structures. In this paper, we present a simple formal representation of a helix, which is a combination of sequence and folding constraints, as a constrained regular expression. This representation allows us to develop a well-founded algorithm that searches for all approximate matches of a helix in a genome. The algorithm is based on an alignment graph constructed from several copies of a pushdown automaton, arranged one on top of another. This is a first attempt to take advantage of the possibilities of pushdown automata in the context of approximate matching. The worst time complexity is O(krpn), where k is the error threshold, n the size of the genome, p the size of the secondary expression, and r its number of union symbols. We then extend the algorithm to search for pseudo-knots and secondary structures containing an arbitrary number of helices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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