ArticleBMC bioinformatics2004
An empirical analysis of training protocols for probabilistic gene finders.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-driven AI system for learning how to run transcript assemblers.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Integrative multi-omics analysis reveals the contribution of neoVTX genes to venom diversity of Synanceia verrucosa.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Solanum americanum genome-assisted discovery of immune receptors that detect potato late blight pathogen effectors.Nature genetics · 2023Article
- Chromosome-level assemblies of cultivated water chestnut Trapa bicornis and its wild relative Trapa incisa.Scientific data · 2023Article
- More Accurate Transcript Assembly via Parameter Advising.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2020Article
- MEGANTE: a web-based system for integrated plant genome annotation.Plant & cell physiology · 2014Article
- Global discriminative learning for higher-accuracy computational gene prediction.PLoS computational biology · 2007Article
- JIGSAW, GeneZilla, and GlimmerHMM: puzzling out the features of human genes in the ENCODE regions.Genome biology · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGeneralized hidden Markov models (GHMMs) appear to be approaching acceptance as a de facto standard for state-of-the-art ab initio gene finding, as evidenced by the recent proliferation of GHMM implementations. While prevailing methods for modeling and parsing genes using GHMMs have been described in the literature, little attention has been paid as of yet to their proper training. The few hints available in the literature together with anecdotal observations suggest that most practitioners perform maximum likelihood parameter estimation only at the local submodel level, and then attend to the optimization of global parameter structure using some form of ad hoc manual tuning of individual parameters.
resultsWe decided to investigate the utility of applying a more systematic optimization approach to the tuning of global parameter structure by implementing a global discriminative training procedure for our GHMM-based gene finder. Our results show that significant improvement in prediction accuracy can be achieved by this method.
conclusionsWe conclude that training of GHMM-based gene finders is best performed using some form of discriminative training rather than simple maximum likelihood estimation at the submodel level, and that generalized gradient ascent methods are suitable for this task. We also conclude that partitioning of training data for the twin purposes of maximum likelihood initialization and gradient ascent optimization appears to be unnecessary, but that strict segregation of test data must be enforced during final gene finder evaluation to avoid artificially inflated accuracy measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.