Back

Systematic Evaluation of Feature Representations for Cancer-Associated sORF Prediction in Non-coding RNA

Rodrigues de Goes, F.; Mazheke, M.; Piveta Schnepper, A.; Karmakar, A.; de Souza, N.; Carvalho, R. F.; Basham, M.; Rossi Paschoal, A.

2026-06-20 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.16.732659 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Short open reading frames (sORFs) within non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) have arisen as a hidden layer of gene regulation, encoding small peptides that represent a new class of cancer regulators with diagnostic and therapeutic potential. However, inferring associations between sORFs to specific cancer types remains challenging and requires computational approaches for accurate prediction. Recently, the CoraL framework introduced the first computational approach for predicting cancer-associated peptides, focusing primarily on model architecture while overlooking how feature extraction strategies influence predictive accuracy. We present a systematic evaluation of machine learning models and feature extraction approaches to predict cancer-associated sORFs across 15 cancer types. We benchmarked seven traditional machine learning algorithms combined with three feature extraction methods: k-mer frequency, Word2Vec embeddings, and genomic language model (gLM)-based embeddings. To our knowledge, this is the first study applying gLM-derived embeddings to the prediction of cancer-associated sORFs in ncRNA. Our results show that traditional machine learning models with appropriate feature extraction outperform the CoraL baseline across all cancer types, achieving up to 10% higher accuracy in some of the 15 evaluated datasets. Interestingly, k-mer features consistently outperformed gLM embeddings without fine-tuning, suggesting that local sequence composition may provide more discriminative information for this task and that pre-trained genomic representations may require task-specific adaptation to fully capture these patterns. Additionally, we observed that the way sequences are tokenized, such as the k-mer length, can affect performance: longer fragments (e.g., k=7) sometimes reduced accuracy for Random Forest but had a smaller effect on MLP. Our findings suggest that appropriate feature engineering can provide greater improvements than increasing model complexity.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
2
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.6%
3
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.5%
4
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 4%
6.1%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 17%
5.4%
6
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.3%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.3%
8
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
9
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.9%
10
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
11
RNA
189 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.9%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.1%
13
Frontiers in Genetics
230 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
14
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
15
BioData Mining
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
16
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
17
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.8%
18
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
19
Molecular Therapy Nucleic Acids
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
20
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.1%
22
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.0%
23
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
238 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
ACS Omega
105 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
Genome Research
468 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
27
Journal of Computational Biology
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
Nature Machine Intelligence
70 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
29
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
30
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 42%
0.6%