MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157410578 · doi:10.30862/jn.v15i1.26

Karakterisasi Nukleotida Daerah Ekson 5 dan 6 Gen LDLR Penduduk Papua

2019· article· id· W3157410578 on OpenAlexaff
Hamida, Achmad Taher

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Natural · 2019
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineMolecular biologyChemistryBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keragaman suku di Papua berpotensi menghasilkan keragaman genetik. Gen LDLR adalah gen pengkode protein reseptor LDL (LDL-R) yang berperan sangat penting dalam homeostasis kolesterol. Gen LDLR terdiri dari 18 ekson dan 17 intron yang membentang sepanjang 45 kilo basa (kb). Daerah ekson 5 dan 6 merupakan bagian struktural yang penting dalam menyandi asam amino penyusun daerah pengikat ligan yang memediasi interaksi antara reseptor dan lipoprotein yang mengandung Apo B-100 atau Apo E. Penelitian ini bertujuan mengkarakterisasi nukleotida pada daerah ekson 5 dan 6 gen LDLR penduduk Papua dengan asal yang berbeda. Amplifikasi gen target dilakukan menggunakan metode reaksi berantai polimerase (PCR) lalu disekuensing untuk mengetahui urutan basa nukleotida. Hasil karakterisasi menunjukkan bahwa karakter nukleotida daerah ekson 5 dan 6 gen LDLR dari 9 mahasiswa UNIPA asal Papua adalah identik karena memiliki jumlah nukleotida dan susunan nukleotida yang sama. Jumlah nukleotida untuk daerah ekson 5 sebesar 123 pb, terdiri dari T=22,0%, C=24,4%, G=30,9%, A=22,8%, A+T=44,8% dan C+G=55,3%. Untuk daerah ekson 6 dengan jumlah nukleotida sebesar 123 pb, komposisi nukleotidanya yakni T=16,3%, C=26,8%, G=27,6%, A=29,3%, A+T=45,6% dan C+G=54,4%. Hasil ini menunjukkan bahwa kedua daerah tersebut adalah lestari.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal NaturalSame topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207