RNMFLP: Predicting circRNA–disease associations based on robust nonnegative matrix factorization and label propagation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circular RNAs (circRNAs) are a class of structurally stable endogenous noncoding RNA molecules. Increasing studies indicate that circRNAs play vital roles in human diseases. However, validating disease-related circRNAs in vivo is costly and time-consuming. A reliable and effective computational method to identify circRNA-disease associations deserves further studies. In this study, we propose a computational method called RNMFLP that combines robust nonnegative matrix factorization (RNMF) and label propagation algorithm (LP) to predict circRNA-disease associations. First, to reduce the impact of false negative data, the original circRNA-disease adjacency matrix is updated by matrix multiplication using the integrated circRNA similarity and the disease similarity information. Subsequently, the RNMF algorithm is used to obtain the restricted latent space to capture potential circRNA-disease pairs from the association matrix. Finally, the LP algorithm is utilized to predict more accurate circRNA-disease associations from the integrated circRNA similarity network and integrated disease similarity network, respectively. Fivefold cross-validation of four datasets shows that RNMFLP is superior to the state-of-the-art methods. In addition, case studies on lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer further demonstrate the reliability of our method to discover disease-related circRNAs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".