MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2148929671 · doi:10.1109/bibe.2010.30

Fast Phased Small RNA Cycle Counting Algorithms

2010· article· en· W2148929671 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Forrest Sheng Bao, Zhixin Xie, Yuanlin Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlzheimer Society Research Program
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmSliding window protocolRNAComputationWindow (computing)Small RNASet (abstract data type)Small interfering RNABiologyGeneticsGeneOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Counting phased small RNA cycles (PSRC) from mapped small RNA positions is a repeatedly invoked subproblem in the computation of identifying TRANS-ACTING siRNA (TAS) loci and loci of other small RNAs forming through mechanisms similar to that of trans-acting small interfering RNAs (ta-siRNAs). The efficiency of counting PSRC has a clear impact on the efficiency of the algorithms predicting these loci. There are two closely related variants on counting PSRC in real applications: WPSRC, which counts the number of distinct small RNAs falling onto the phased positions in a sliding window, and MPSRC, which counts the maximum consecutive PSRC from mapped small RNA positions. In this paper, we develop fast algorithms for both WPSRC and MPSRC. Our algorithms have O(max(S)) time complexity, while the existing algorithm and its variant have O(|S|·max(S)) and O(|S|·L) time complexity for MPSRC and WPSRC respectively, where S is a set of mapped small RNA positions and L the length of sliding window for WPSRC. Experimental results on two real-life datasets show that our algorithms are significantly faster than the existing algorithm and its variant. The proposed algorithms are applicable to TAS-like clusters with any PSRC length including 21-nt.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques→French-language works237,207→