MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084120708 · doi:10.1094/phyto-100-8-0732

The Promise and Pitfalls of Sequence-Based Identification of Plant-Pathogenic Fungi and Oomycetes

2010· review· en· W2084120708 on OpenAlexaff
Seogchan Kang, Michele A. Mansfield, Bong-Soo Park, David M. Geiser, Kelly Ivors, Michael D. Coffey, Niklaus J. Grünwald, Frank N. Martin, C. André Lévesque, Jaime E. Blair

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytopathology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyIdentification (biology)Computational biologyPhytophthoraSequence (biology)OomyceteInterpretation (philosophy)PathogenGeneticsEcologyComputer scienceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequences of selected marker loci have been widely used for the identification of specific pathogens and the development of sequence-based diagnostic methods. Although such approaches offer several advantages over traditional culture-based methods for pathogen diagnosis and identification, they have their own pitfalls. These include erroneous and incomplete data in reference databases, poor or oversimplified interpretation of search results, and problems associated with defining species boundaries. In this letter, we outline the potential benefits and drawbacks of using sequence data for identification and taxonomic deduction of plant-pathogenic fungi and oomycetes, using phytophthora as a primary example. We also discuss potential remedies for these pitfalls and address why coordinated community efforts are essential to make such remedies more efficient and robust.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytopathologySame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207