MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150717117 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr444

Bayesian prediction of tissue-regulated splicing using RNA sequence and cellular context

2011· article· en· W2150717117 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hui Xiong, Yoseph Barash, Brendan J. Frey

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRNA splicingSource codeContext (archaeology)Alternative splicingFeature (linguistics)Computational biologyExonComputer scienceInferenceGibbs samplingBayesian probabilityBiologyGeneRNAArtificial intelligenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Alternative splicing is a major contributor to cellular diversity in mammalian tissues and relates to many human diseases. An important goal in understanding this phenomenon is to infer a 'splicing code' that predicts how splicing is regulated in different cell types by features derived from RNA, DNA and epigenetic modifiers. METHODS: We formulate the assembly of a splicing code as a problem of statistical inference and introduce a Bayesian method that uses an adaptively selected number of hidden variables to combine subgroups of features into a network, allows different tissues to share feature subgroups and uses a Gibbs sampler to hedge predictions and ascertain the statistical significance of identified features. RESULTS: Using data for 3665 cassette exons, 1014 RNA features and 4 tissue types derived from 27 mouse tissues (http://genes.toronto.edu/wasp), we benchmarked several methods. Our method outperforms all others, and achieves relative improvements of 52% in splicing code quality and up to 22% in classification error, compared with the state of the art. Novel combinations of regulatory features and novel combinations of tissues that share feature subgroups were identified using our method. CONTACT: frey@psi.toronto.edu 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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations116
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207