Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful sequencing experiments require judicious sample selection. However, this selection must often be performed on the basis of limited preliminary data. Predicting the statistical properties of the final sample based on preliminary data can be challenging, because numerous uncertain model assumptions may be involved. Here, we ask whether we can predict "omics" variation across many samples by sequencing only a fraction of them. In the infinite-genome limit, we find that a pilot study sequencing 5% of a population is sufficient to predict the number of genetic variants in the entire population within 6% of the correct value, using an estimator agnostic to demography, selection, or population structure. To reach similar accuracy in a finite genome with millions of polymorphisms, the pilot study would require ∼15% of the population. We present computationally efficient jackknife and linear programming methods that exhibit substantially less bias than the state of the art when applied to simulated data and subsampled 1000 Genomes Project data. Extrapolating based on the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Exome Sequencing Project data, we predict that 7.2% of sites in the capture region would be variable in a sample of 50,000 African Americans and 8.8% in a European sample of equal size. Finally, we show how the linear programming method can also predict discovery rates of various genomic features, such as the number of transcription factor binding sites across different cell types.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".