ArticlePeerJ2017
Delineating the impact of machine learning elements in pre-microRNA detection.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hepatitis B Virus and microRNAs: A Bioinformatics Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Computational Detection of Pre-microRNAs.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Review
- Circular RNA-MicroRNA-MRNA interaction predictions in SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Article
- MicroRNA prediction based on 3D graphical representation of RNA secondary structures.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2019Article
- Improved Pre-miRNAs Identification Through Mutual Information of Pre-miRNA Sequences and Structures.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Improving the Quality of Positive Datasets for the Establishment of Machine Learning Models for pre-microRNA Detection.Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene regulation modulates RNA expression via transcription factors. Post-transcriptional gene regulation in turn influences the amount of protein product through, for example, microRNAs (miRNAs). Experimental establishment of miRNAs and their effects is complicated and even futile when aiming to establish the entirety of miRNA target interactions. Therefore, computational approaches have been proposed. Many such tools rely on machine learning (ML) which involves example selection, feature extraction, model training, algorithm selection, and parameter optimization. Different ML algorithms have been used for model training on various example sets, more than 1,000 features describing pre-miRNAs have been proposed and different training and testing schemes have been used for model establishment. For pre-miRNA detection, negative examples cannot easily be established causing a problem for two class classification algorithms. There is also no consensus on what ML approach works best and, therefore, we set forth and established the impact of the different parts involved in ML on model performance. Furthermore, we established two new negative datasets and analyzed the impact of using them for training and testing. It was our aim to attach an order of importance to the parts involved in ML for pre-miRNA detection, but instead we found that all parts are intricately connected and their contributions cannot be easily untangled leading us to suggest that when attempting ML-based pre-miRNA detection many scenarios need to be explored.
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.