MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293555592 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkac732

Exploration and analysis of R-loop mapping data with <i>RLBase</i>

2022· article· en· W4293555592 on OpenAlexaff
Henry E. Miller, Daniel Montemayor, Janet Li, Simon A. Levy, Roshan Pawar, Stella R. Hartono, Kumar Sharma, Bess Frost, Frédéric Chédin, Alexander J.R. Bishop

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on AgingCancer Prevention and Research Institute of TexasU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsLoop (graph theory)BiologyLoop fusionData mappingHuman-in-the-loopComputer scienceData miningDatabaseComputational biologyProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

R-loops are three-stranded nucleic acid structures formed from the hybridization of RNA and DNA. In 2012, Ginno et al. introduced the first R-loop mapping method. Since that time, dozens of R-loop mapping studies have been conducted, yielding hundreds of publicly available datasets. Current R-loop databases provide only limited access to these data. Moreover, no web tools for analyzing user-supplied R-loop datasets have yet been described. In our recent work, we reprocessed 810 R-loop mapping samples, building the largest R-loop data resource to date. We also defined R-loop consensus regions and developed a framework for R-loop data analysis. Now, we introduce RLBase, a user-friendly database that provides the capability to (i) explore hundreds of public R-loop mapping datasets, (ii) explore R-loop consensus regions, (iii) analyze user-supplied data and (iv) download standardized and reprocessed datasets. RLBase is directly accessible via the following URL: https://gccri.bishop-lab.uthscsa.edu/shiny/rlbase/.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207