Systematic evaluation, verification and comparison of tuberculosis‐related non‐coding RNA diagnostic panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We systematically summarized tuberculosis (TB)‐related non‐coding RNA (ncRNA) diagnostic panels, validated and compared panel performance. We searched TB‐related ncRNA panels in PubMed, OVID and Web of Science up to 28 February 2020, and available datasets in GEO, SRA and EBI ArrayExpress up to 1 March 2020. We rebuilt models and synthesized the results of each model in validation sets by bivariate mixed models. Specificity at 90% sensitivity, area under curve (AUC) and inconsistence index (I2) were calculated. NcRNA biofunctions were analysed. Nineteen models based on 18 ncRNA panels (miRNA, lncRNA, circRNA and snoRNA panels) and 18 datasets were included. Limited available datasets only allowed to evaluate miRNA panels further. Cui 2017 and Latorre 2015 exhibited specificity >70% at 90% sensitivity and AUC >80% in all validation sets. Cui 2017 showed higher specificity at 90% sensitivity (92%) and AUC (95%) and lower heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) in ethological‐confirmation validation sets. Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analysis indicated that most ncRNAs in panels involved in immune cell activation, oxidative stress, and Wnt and MAPK signalling pathway. Cui 2017 outperformed other models in both all available and aetiological‐confirmed validation sets, meeting the criteria of target product profile of WHO. This work provided a basis for clinical choice of TB‐related ncRNA diagnostic panels to a certain extent.
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 | 0.063 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".