Improving gene recognition accuracy by combiningpredictions from two gene-finding programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Despite constant improvements in prediction accuracy, gene-finding programs are still unable to provide automatic gene discovery with desired correctness. The current programs can identify up to 75% of exons correctly and less than 50% of predicted gene structures correspond to actual genes. New approaches to computational gene-finding are clearly needed. RESULTS: In this paper we have explored the benefits of combining predictions from already existing gene prediction programs. We have introduced three novel methods for combining predictions from programs Genscan and HMMgene. The methods primarily aim to improve exon level accuracy of gene-finding by identifying more probable exon boundaries and by eliminating false positive exon predictions. This approach results in improved accuracy at both the nucleotide and exon level, especially the latter, where the average improvement on the newly assembled dataset is 7.9% compared to the best result obtained by Genscan and HMMgene. When tested on a long genomic multi-gene sequence, our method that maintains reading frame consistency improved nucleotide level specificity by 21.0% and exon level specificity by 32.5% compared to the best result obtained by either of the two programs individually. AVAILABILITY: The scripts implementing our methods are available from http://www.cs.ubc.ca/labs/beta/genefinding/
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".