Exploration and analysis of R-loop mapping data with <i>RLBase</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
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".