ArticleBiology2025
Research on Plant RNA-Binding Protein Prediction Method Based on Improved Ensemble Learning.
Article in Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) play a crucial role in regulating gene expression in plants, affecting growth, development, and stress responses. Accurate prediction of plant-specific RBPs is vital for understanding gene regulation and enhancing genetic improvement. (2) Methods: We propose an ensemble learning method that integrates shallow and deep learning. It integrates prediction results from SVM, LR, LDA, and LightGBM into an enhanced TextCNN, using K-Peptide Composition (KPC) encoding (k = 1, 2) to form a 420-dimensional feature vector, extended to 424 dimensions by including those four prediction outputs. Redundancy is minimized using a Pearson correlation threshold of 0.80. (3) Results: On the benchmark dataset of 4992 sequences, our method achieved an ACC of 97.20% and 97.06% under 5-fold and 10-fold cross-validation, respectively. On an independent dataset of 1086 sequences, our method attained an ACC of 99.72%, an F1score of 99.72%, an MCC of 99.45%, an SN of 99.63%, and an SP of 99.82%, outperforming RBPLight by 12.98 percentage points in ACC and the original TextCNN by 25.23 percentage points. (4) Conclusions: These results highlight our method's superior accuracy and efficiency over PSSM-based approaches, enabling large-scale plant RBP prediction.
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.