MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979201422 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2010.0145

Algorithm for Haplotype Inference via Galled-Tree Networks with Simple Galls

2012· article· en· W1979201422 on OpenAlexaff
Arvind Gupta, Ján Maňuch, Ladislav Stacho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaplotypePhylogenetic treeTree (set theory)BiologyPhylogenetic networkRank (graph theory)Computer scienceInferenceComputational biologyMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceGeneticsCombinatoricsGenotypeArtificial intelligenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of determining haplotypes from genotypes has gained considerable prominence in the research community. Here the focus is on determining sets of SNP values on individual chromosomes since such information captures the genetic causes of diseases. The most efficient algorithmic tool for haplotyping is based on perfect phylogenetic trees. A drawback of this method is that it cannot be applied in situations when the data contains homoplasies (multiple mutations of the same character) or recombinations. Recently, Song et al. ( 2005 ) studied the two cases: haplotyping via imperfect phylogenies with a single homoplasy and via galled-tree networks with one gall. In Gupta et al. ( 2010 ), we have shown that the haplotyping via galled-tree networks is NP-hard, even if we restrict to the case when every gall contains at most 3 mutations. We present a polynomial algorithm for haplotyping via galled-tree networks with simple galls (each having two mutations) for genotype matrices which satisfy a natural condition which is implied by presence of at least one 1 in each column that contains a 2. In the end, we give the experimental results comparing our algorithm with PHASE on simulated data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207