AbCD: arbitrary coverage design for sequencing-based genetic studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Summary: Recent advances in sequencing technologies have revolutionized genetic studies. Although high-coverage sequencing can uncover most variants present in the sequenced sample, low-coverage sequencing is appealing for its cost effectiveness. Here, we present AbCD (arbitrary coverage design) to aid the design of sequencing-based studies. AbCD is a user-friendly interface providing pre-estimated effective sample sizes, specific to each minor allele frequency category, for designs with arbitrary coverage (0.5–30×) and sample size (20–10 000), and for four major ethnic groups (Europeans, Africans, Asians and African Americans). In addition, we also present two software tools: ShotGun and DesignPlanner, which were used to generate the estimates behind AbCD. ShotGun is a flexible short-read simulator for arbitrary user-specified read length and average depth, allowing cycle-specific sequencing error rates and realistic read depth distributions. DesignPlanner is a full pipeline that uses ShotGun to generate sequence data and performs initial SNP discovery, uses our previously presented linkage disequilibrium-aware method to call genotypes, and, finally, provides minor allele frequency-specific effective sample sizes. ShotGun plus DesignPlanner can accommodate effective sample size estimate for any combination of high-depth and low-depth data (for example, whole-genome low-depth plus exonic high-depth) or combination of sequence and genotype data [for example, whole-exome sequencing plus genotyping from existing Genomewide Association Study (GWAS)]. Availability and implementation: AbCD, including its downloadable terminal interface and web-based interface, and the associated tools ShotGun and DesignPlanner, including documentation, examples and executables, are available at http://www.unc.edu/∼yunmli/AbCD.html. Contact: yunli@med.unc.edu
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".