PWCDA: Path Weighted Method for Predicting circRNA-Disease Associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CircRNAs have particular biological structure and have proven to play important roles in diseases. It is time-consuming and costly to identify circRNA-disease associations by biological experiments. Therefore, it is appealing to develop computational methods for predicting circRNA-disease associations. In this study, we propose a new computational path weighted method for predicting circRNA-disease associations. Firstly, we calculate the functional similarity scores of diseases based on disease-related gene annotations and the semantic similarity scores of circRNAs based on circRNA-related gene ontology, respectively. To address missing similarity scores of diseases and circRNAs, we calculate the Gaussian Interaction Profile (GIP) kernel similarity scores for diseases and circRNAs, respectively, based on the circRNA-disease associations downloaded from circR2Disease database (http://bioinfo.snnu.edu.cn/CircR2Disease/). Then, we integrate disease functional similarity scores and circRNA semantic similarity scores with their related GIP kernel similarity scores to construct a heterogeneous network made up of three sub-networks: disease similarity network, circRNA similarity network and circRNA-disease association network. Finally, we compute an association score for each circRNA-disease pair based on paths connecting them in the heterogeneous network to determine whether this circRNA-disease pair is associated. We adopt leave one out cross validation (LOOCV) and five-fold cross validations to evaluate the performance of our proposed method. In addition, three common diseases, Breast Cancer, Gastric Cancer and Colorectal Cancer, are used for case studies. Experimental results illustrate the reliability and usefulness of our computational method in terms of different validation measures, which indicates PWCDA can effectively predict potential circRNA-disease associations.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".