--- license: cc-by-2.0 task_categories: - text-classification language: - en tags: - biology pretty_name: RNAcentral Litscan ncRNA Related Abstracts size_categories: - 1K4000 RNAs. They are mostly miRNAs, but also cover a lot of other types, and the non-miRNA part is expanding. Rfam families are usually built from an alignmentthat is published, so the papers mentioned by Rfam families will be relevant to ncRNA ### GO GO is the Gene Ontology, a knowledge base of function in biology. A subset of annotations in GO are manually curated by human curators reading papers, so those papers curated with ncRNA relevant terms will definitely be relevant to ncRNA. A large fraction of the GO curation is about miRNA-mRNA interactions, but there is a bit of other stuff in there as well; reflecting the type of analyses done in low throughput experiments on ncRNA ### Manually annotated articles A set of ~400 abstracts were manually assessed for relevance to ncRNA by members of the RNAcentral & Rfam teams. These were drawn from a EuropePMC query designed to pull in as many potentially relevant articles as possible. These should cover all RNA types, but the set is relatively small ### Non-ncRNA related articles To provide our negative set, we used this EuropePMC search to retrieve ~3500 articles: ``` f'/search?query=(IN_EPMC:Y AND OPEN_ACCESS:Y AND NOT SRC:PPR AND NOT "rna" ' \ f'AND NOT "mrna" AND NOT "ncrna" AND NOT "lncrna" AND NOT "rrna" AND NOT "sncrna" AND NOT "mirna") ' \ f'&sort_cited:y&pageSize=500&cursorMark={page}&format=json' ``` This is the opposite query to the one used in production for LitScan, so should be pulling in totally irrelevant articles. ## Limitations - Most of the positive set come from annotations or other linkages with miRNAs. Therefore, we kind of expect this dataset to produce a model that is good at finding miRNA related articles, but it may struggle when filtering articles relevant for other types (e.g. snoRNA) that are under-represented - The negative set may be too easy to separate from the positive, since they are deliberately very irrelevant