Integrating alignment-based and alignment-free sequence similarity measures for biological sequence classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Alignment-based sequence similarity searches, while accurate for some type of sequences, can produce incorrect results when used on more divergent but functionally related sequences that have undergone the sequence rearrangements observed in many bacterial and viral genomes. Here, we propose a classification model that exploits the complementary nature of alignment-based and alignment-free similarity measures with the aim to improve the accuracy with which DNA and protein sequences are characterized. RESULTS: Our model classifies sequences using a combined sequence similarity score calculated by adaptively weighting the contribution of different sequence similarity measures. Weights are determined independently for each sequence in the test set and reflect the discriminatory ability of individual similarity measures in the training set. Because the similarity between some sequences is determined more accurately with one type of measure rather than another, our classifier allows different sets of weights to be associated with different sequences. Using five different similarity measures, we show that our model significantly improves the classification accuracy over the current composition- and alignment-based models, when predicting the taxonomic lineage for both short viral sequence fragments and complete viral sequences. We also show that our model can be used effectively for the classification of reads from a real metagenome dataset as well as protein sequences. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All the datasets and the code used in this study are freely available at https://collaborators.oicr.on.ca/vferretti/borozan_csss/csss.html. CONTACT: ivan.borozan@gmail.com SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".