aliFreeFoldMulti: alignment-free method to predict secondary structures of multiple RNA homologs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting RNA structure is crucial for understanding RNA's mechanism of action. Comparative approaches for the prediction of RNA structures can be classified into four main strategies. The three first-align-and-fold, align-then-fold and fold-then-align-exploit multiple sequence alignments to improve the accuracy of conserved RNA-structure prediction. Align-and-fold methods perform generally better, but are also typically slower than the other alignment-based methods. The fourth strategy-alignment-free-consists in predicting the conserved RNA structure without relying on sequence alignment. This strategy has the advantage of being the faster, while predicting accurate structures through the use of latent representations of the candidate structures for each sequence. This paper presents aliFreeFoldMulti, an extension of the aliFreeFold algorithm. This algorithm predicts a representative secondary structure of multiple RNA homologs by using a vector representation of their suboptimal structures. aliFreeFoldMulti improves on aliFreeFold by additionally computing the conserved structure for each sequence. aliFreeFoldMulti is assessed by comparing its prediction performance and time efficiency with a set of leading RNA-structure prediction methods. aliFreeFoldMulti has the lowest computing times and the highest maximum accuracy scores. It achieves comparable average structure prediction accuracy as other methods, except TurboFoldII which is the best in terms of average accuracy but with the highest computing times. We present aliFreeFoldMulti as an illustration of the potential of alignment-free approaches to provide fast and accurate RNA-structure prediction methods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".