MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913186280 · doi:10.1109/bibm.2018.8621478

Prediction of transposable elements evolution using tabu search

2018· article· en· W2913186280 on OpenAlexaff
Lingling Jin, Ian McQuillan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTabu searchTransposable elementGenomeComputer scienceAlgorithmHeuristicArtificial intelligenceBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transposable elements (TEs) are DNA sequences that can move or copy to new positions within a genome. Due to their abundance in many species, predicting the evolution of these TEs within a genome is a major component of understanding the evolution of the genome generally. The sequential interruption model is defined between TEs that occur in a single genome, which has been shown to be useful in previous literature in predicting TE ages and periods of activity throughout evolution. This model is closely related to a classic matrix optimization problem: the linear ordering problem (LOP). By applying a well-studied method of solving the LOP, tabu search, to the sequential interruption model, a relative age order of all TEs in the human genome is predicted in only 38 seconds. A comparison of the TE ordering between tabu search and the previously existing method shows that tabu search solves the TE problem exceedingly more efficiently, while it still achieves a more accurate result. The speed improvements allow a complete prediction of human TEs to be made, whereas previously, ordering of only a small portion of human TEs could be predicted. A simulation of TE transpositions throughout evolution is then developed and used as a form of in silico verification to the sequential interruption model. By feeding the simulated TE remnants and activity data into the model, a relative age order is predicted using the sequential interruption model, and a quantified correlation between this predicted order and the input (true) age order in the simulation can be calculated. An average correlation over ten simulations is calculated as 0.738 with the correct simulated answer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207