MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A general approach to the analysis of errors and failure modes in the base-calling function in automated fluorescent DNA sequencing

2002· article· en· W2067328998 on OpenAlexaff
А. М. Измайлов, Dmitri Goloubentzev, Caroline Jin, Susan Sunay, Valiente Wisco, Thomas D. Yager

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoAmgen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectropherogramDNA sequencerSanger sequencingNoise (video)Computer scienceFunction (biology)DNA sequencingDistortion (music)Base pairAlgorithmDNAComputational biologyBiological systemArtificial intelligenceElectrophoresisBiologyGeneticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the analysis of errors and failure modes in the base-calling function in automated DNA sequencing, on instruments in which fluorescently-labeled Sanger dideoxy-sequencing ladders are detected via their times of migration past a fixed detector. A general approach entails the joint use of: (i) well-defined control samples such as M13mp18, and (ii) mathematical simulation of sequencing electropherograms, with the deliberate introduction of different types of distortion and noise. An algorithm, the electrophoretic trace simulator (ETS), is used to calculate electrophoresis traces corresponding to the output data stream of an automated fluorescent DNA sequencer. The ETS accepts a user-defined sequence of nucleotide bases (A, C, G, T) as input, and employs user-adjustable functions to compute the following critical parameters of an electropherogram: peak intensity, peak spacing, peak shape as a function of base number; background, noise, and spectral cross-talk correction (for a sequencer using multiple dyes). We use a combination of M13mp18 controls and simulated electropherograms to analyze two problems of considerable practical importance: (i) variation in electrophoretic migration rates between different lanes of a gel, and (ii) variation in signal intensity due to user-dependent loading artifacts. The issue of base-calling errors and failure modes, for electropherograms that contain noise and distortion, is addressed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207