miRTRS: A Recommendation Algorithm for Predicting miRNA Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
microRNAs (miRNAs) are small and important non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression in transcriptional and post-transcriptional level by combining with their targets (genes). Predicting miRNA targets is an important problem in biological research. It is expensive and time-consuming to identify miRNA targets by using biological experiments. Many computational methods have been proposed to predict miRNA targets. In this study, we develop a novel method, named miRTRS, for predicting miRNA targets based on a recommendation algorithm. miRTRS can predict targets for an isolated (new) miRNA with miRNA sequence similarity, as well as isolated (new) targets for a miRNA with gene sequence similarity. Furthermore, when compared to supervised machine learning methods, miRTRS does not need to select negative samples. We use 10-fold cross validation and independent datasets to evaluate the performance of our method. We compared miRTRS with two most recently published methods for miRNA target prediction. The experimental results have shown that our method miRTRS outperforms competing prediction methods in terms of AUC and other evaluation metrics.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".