Discovering MicroRNA-Regulatory Modules in Multi-Dimensional Cancer Genomic Data: A Survey of Computational Methods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MicroRNAs (miRs) are small single-stranded noncoding RNA that function in RNA silencing and post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. An increasing number of studies have shown that miRs play an important role in tumorigenesis, and understanding the regulatory mechanism of miRs in this gene regulatory network will help elucidate the complex biological processes at play during malignancy. Despite advances, determination of miR-target interactions (MTIs) and identification of functional modules composed of miRs and their specific targets remain a challenge. A large amount of data generated by high-throughput methods from various sources are available to investigate MTIs. The development of data-driven tools to harness these multi-dimensional data has resulted in significant progress over the past decade. In parallel, large-scale cancer genomic projects are allowing new insights into the commonalities and disparities of miR-target regulation across cancers. In the first half of this review, we explore methods for identification of pairwise MTIs, and in the second half, we explore computational tools for discovery of miR-regulatory modules in a cancer-specific and pan-cancer context. We highlight strengths and limitations of each of these tools as a practical guide for the computational biologists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it