A community-driven roadmap to advance research on translated open reading frames detected by Ribo-seq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Ribosome profiling (Ribo-seq) has catalyzed a paradigm shift in our understanding of the translational ‘vocabulary’ of the human genome, discovering thousands of translated open reading frames (ORFs) within long non-coding RNAs and presumed untranslated regions of protein-coding genes. However, reference gene annotation projects have been circumspect in their incorporation of these ORFs due to uncertainties about their experimental reproducibility and physiological roles. Yet, it is indisputable that certain Ribo-seq ORFs make stable proteins, others mediate gene regulation, and many have medical implications. Ultimately, the absence of standardized ORF annotation has created a circular problem: while Ribo-seq ORFs remain unannotated by reference biological databases, this lack of characterisation will thwart research efforts examining their roles. Here, we outline the initial stages of a community-led effort supported by GENCODE / Ensembl, HGNC and UniProt to produce a consolidated catalog of human Ribo-seq ORFs.
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 | 0.062 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
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".