RED-ML: a novel, effective RNA editing detection method based on machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advancement of second generation sequencing techniques, our ability to detect and quantify RNA editing on a global scale has been vastly improved. As a result, RNA editing is now being studied under a growing number of biological conditions so that its biochemical mechanisms and functional roles can be further understood. However, a major barrier that prevents RNA editing from being a routine RNA-seq analysis, similar to gene expression and splicing analysis, for example, is the lack of user-friendly and effective computational tools. Based on years of experience of analyzing RNA editing using diverse RNA-seq datasets, we have developed a software tool, RED-ML: RNA Editing Detection based on Machine learning (pronounced as "red ML"). The input to RED-ML can be as simple as a single BAM file, while it can also take advantage of matched genomic variant information when available. The output not only contains detected RNA editing sites, but also a confidence score to facilitate downstream filtering. We have carefully designed validation experiments and performed extensive comparison and analysis to show the efficiency and effectiveness of RED-ML under different conditions, and it can accurately detect novel RNA editing sites without relying on curated RNA editing databases. We have also made this tool freely available via GitHub . We have developed a highly accurate, speedy and general-purpose tool for RNA editing detection using RNA-seq data. With the availability of RED-ML, it is now possible to conveniently make RNA editing a routine analysis of RNA-seq. We believe this can greatly benefit the RNA editing research community and has profound impact to accelerate our understanding of this intriguing posttranscriptional modification process.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".