MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134975289 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbu044

Comprehensive overview and assessment of computational prediction of microRNA targets in animals

2014· review· en· W2134975289 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational biologymicroRNAComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Benchmark (surveying)Computational modelBiologyGeneArtificial intelligenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short endogenous noncoding RNAs that bind to target mRNAs, usually resulting in degradation and translational repression. Identification of miRNA targets is crucial for deciphering functional roles of the numerous miRNAs that are rapidly generated by sequencing efforts. Computational prediction methods are widely used for high-throughput generation of putative miRNA targets. We review a comprehensive collection of 38 miRNA sequence-based computational target predictors in animals that were developed over the past decade. Our in-depth analysis considers all significant perspectives including the underlying predictive methodologies with focus on how they draw from the mechanistic basis of the miRNA-mRNA interaction. We also discuss ease of use, availability, impact of the considered predictors and the evaluation protocols that were used to assess them. We are the first to comparatively and comprehensively evaluate seven representative methods when predicting miRNA targets at the duplex and gene levels. The gene-level evaluation is based on three benchmark data sets that rely on different ways to annotate targets including biochemical assays, microarrays and pSILAC. We offer practical advice on selection of appropriate predictors according to certain properties of miRNA sequences, characteristics of a specific application and desired levels of predictive quality. We also discuss future work related to the design of new models, data quality, improved usability, need for standardized evaluation and ability to predict mRNA expression changes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.295 · 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