A hybrid evolutionary/clustering algorithm for RNA secondary structure prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shape that organic molecules such as biopolymers form within organic systems largely determines the function said molecules perform. RNA is a biopolymer that plays a central part in several stages of protein synthesis, and also has structural, functional, and regulatory roles in the cell. In an ab initio case where only a single RNA sequence is determined, the most common structure prediction techniques employ minimization of the free energy of a given RNA molecule via a thermodynamic model. Regrettably, the minimum free energy structure is rarely the native structure; typically the native structure can be found within 5 percent of the minimum free energy. While suboptimal energy structures may also be predicted, there is no still no method to determine which suboptimal fold best represents the native fold. One possible technique is to apply clustering algorithms to a population of potential structures. This thesis presents the hybridization of an evolutionary algorithm (EA) with a clustering algorithm. The effects of two additional thermodynamic models on the EA, including a pseudoknot enabled model, are also investigated. Finally, the prediction sensitivity, specificity, and F-measure of RnaPredict is evaluated through comparison to known structures. Comparisons are also made with existing prediction algorithms including sfold, mfold, and HotKnots. RnaPredict offers comparable performance to these algorithms and can outperform these algorithms on specific sequences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".