ArticleProceedings. AMIA Symposium2002
DNA splice site detection: a comparison of specific and general methods.
Article in Proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an era when whole organism genomes are being routinely sequenced, the problem of gene finding has become a key issue on the road to understanding. For eukaryotic organisms a large part of locating the genes is accomplished by predicting the likely location of splice sites on a DNA strand. This problem of splice site location has been ap- proached using a number of machine learning or statistical methods tailored more or less specifically to the nature of the problem. Recently large margin classifiers and boosting methods have been found to give improvements over more traditional methods in a number of areas. Here we compare large margin classifiers (SVM and CMLS) and boosted decision trees with the three most common models used for splice site detection (WMM, WAM, and MDT). We find that the newer methods compare favorably in all cases and can yield significant improvement in some cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12463853PMC2244387What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.