MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2105586527 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2006.277314

Evaluation of RNA Secondary Structure Motifs using Regression Analysis

2006· article· en· W2105586527 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Anwar, Marcel Turcotte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRNARegression analysisComputer scienceRegressionArtificial intelligenceNucleic acid secondary structureVariance (accounting)Sequence (biology)Computational biologyMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmData miningMachine learningStatisticsBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent experimental evidences have shown that ribonucleic acid (RNA) plays a greater role in the cell than previously thought. An ensemble of RNA sequences believed to contain signals at the structure level can be exploited to detect functional motifs common to all or a portion of those sequences. We present here a general framework for analyzing multiple RNA secondary structures. A family of related RNA structures may be analyzed using statistical regression methods. In this work, we extend our previously developed algorithm, seed, that allows to explore exhaustively the search space of RNA sequence and structure motifs. We introduce here several objective functions based on thermodynamic free energy and information content to discriminate native folds from the rest. We assume that the variation across the various scores can be represented by a statistical model. Regression analysis permits to assign separate weight for each score, allowing one to emphasize or compensate the variance that differs across the different scores. A statistical model can be formulated using techniques from regression analysis to obtain a template or scoring model that is able to identify putative functional regions in RNA sequences. We show that thermodynamic based regression models are effective to associate the variation of scores obtained from different functions. The models can generally identify motifs with high measures of specificity and positive predicted value to known motifs. A good scoring method will allow to eliminate invalid motifs thereby reducing the size of the hypothesis space

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms→French-language works237,207→