SARNA-Predict-pk: Predicting RNA secondary structures including pseudoknots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudoknots are RNA tertiary structures which perform essential biological functions. This paper presents SARNA-Predict-pk, an algorithm for pseudoknotted RNA secondary structure prediction based on Simulated Annealing (SA). The research presented here extends previous work of SARNA-Predict and incorporates a new thermodynamic model into the algorithm, effectively enabling it to predict pseudo-knotted RNA structures. An evaluation of the performance of SARNA-Predict-pk in terms of prediction accuracy is made via comparison with several state-of-the-art prediction algorithms. We measured the sensitivity and specificity using five prediction algorithms. Three of these are dynamic programming algorithms: Pseudoknot (pknotsRE), NUPACK, and pknotsRG-mfe. The other two are heuristic algorithms: SARNA-Predict-pk and HotKnots algorithms. An evaluation for the performance of SARNA-Predict-pk in terms of prediction accuracy was verified with native structures. Experiments on ten individual known structures from six RNA classes (tRNA, viral RNA, anti-genomic HDV, telomerase RNA, tmRNA, and RNaseP) were performed. The results presented in this paper demonstrate that SARNA-Predict-pk can out-perform other state-of-the-art algorithms in terms of prediction accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".