Current Progress of High-Throughput MicroRNA Differential Expression Analysis and Random Forest Gene Selection for Model and Non-Model Systems: an R Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary MicroRNAs are short non-coding RNA transcripts that act as master cellular regulators with roles in orchestrating virtually all biological functions. The recent affordability and widespread use of high-throughput microRNA profiling technologies has grown along with the advancement of bioinformatics tools available for analysis of the mounting data flow. While there are many computational resources available for the management of data from genomesequenced animals, researchers are often faced with the challenge of identifying the biological implications of the daunting amount of data generated from these high-throughput technologies. In this article, we review the current state of highthroughput microRNA expression profiling platforms, data analysis processes, and computational tools in the context of comparative molecular physiology. We also present RBioMIR and RBioFS, our R package implementations for differential expression analysis and random forest-based gene selection. Detailed installation guides are available at kenstoreylab.com.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".