MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2913966022 · doi:10.1109/bibm.2018.8621144

Active Learning for microRNA Prediction

2018· article· en· W2913966022 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Sheikh Hassani, James R. Green

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Computer sciencemicroRNAMachine learningArtificial intelligenceTraining setLabeled dataCoding (social sciences)Data miningBiologyGeneMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MicroRNA (miRNA) are short, non-coding RNA involved in cell regulation at post-transcriptional and translational levels. Wet-lab experimental validation of predicted miRNA is a resource-intensive procedure. Therefore, a variety of computational approaches have been developed to increase prediction accuracy and reduce validation costs. While these methods are highly effective, they require large labelled training data sets, which are often not available for many species. Simultaneously, emerging high-throughput wet-lab experimental procedures produce large unlabeled data sets of genomic sequence and RNA expression profiles. Existing methods are unable to leverage these unlabeled data. This paper explores the application of active learning to maximize the utility of both labelled and unlabeled training data in microRNA prediction for the first time. Results across six diverse species show that our active learning approach is able to greatly improve classification performance using a small number of labeled instances, outperforming state-of-the-art methods under equivalent training data constraints.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms→French-language works237,207→