An integrated computational validation approach for potential novel miRNA prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short, non-coding RNAs between 17bp-24bp length that regulate gene expression by targeting mRNA molecules. The regulatory functions of miRNAs are known to be majorly associated with disease phenotypes such as cancer, cell signaling, cell division, growth and other metabolisms. Novel miRNAs are defined as sequences which does not have any similarity with the existing known sequences and void of any experimental evidences. In recent decades, the advent of nextgeneration sequencing allows us to capture the small RNA molecules form the cells and developing methods to estimate their expression levels. Several computational algorithms are available to predict the novel miRNAs from the deep sequencing data. In this work, we integrated three novel miRNA prediction programs miRDeep, miRanalyzer and miRPRo to compare and validate their prediction efficiency. The dicer cleavage sites, alignment density, seed conservation, minimum free energy, AU-GC percentage, secondary loop scores, false discovery rates and confidence scores will be considered for comparison and evaluation. Efficiency to identify isomiRs and base pair mismatches in a strand specific manner will also be considered for the computational validation. Further, the criteria and parameters for the identification of the best possible novel miRNA with minimal false positive rates were deduced.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".