MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113574907 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl238

Integrating copy number polymorphisms into array CGH analysis using a robust HMM

2006· article· en· W2113574907 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCGenome Canada
KeywordsOutlierHidden Markov modelComputer scienceComparative genomic hybridizationSegmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Copy-number variationBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligenceChromosomeBiologyGenomeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) is a pervasive technique used to identify chromosomal aberrations in human diseases, including cancer. Aberrations are defined as regions of increased or decreased DNA copy number, relative to a normal sample. Accurately identifying the locations of these aberrations has many important medical applications. Unfortunately, the observed copy number changes are often corrupted by various sources of noise, making the boundaries hard to detect. One popular current technique uses hidden Markov models (HMMs) to divide the signal into regions of constant copy number called segments; a subsequent classification phase labels each segment as a gain, a loss or neutral. Unfortunately, standard HMMs are sensitive to outliers, causing over-segmentation, where segments erroneously span very short regions. RESULTS: We propose a simple modification that makes the HMM robust to such outliers. More importantly, this modification allows us to exploit prior knowledge about the likely location of "outliers", which are often due to copy number polymorphisms (CNPs). By "explaining away" these outliers with prior knowledge about the locations of CNPs, we can focus attention on the more clinically relevant aberrated regions. We show significant improvements over the current state of the art technique (DNAcopy with MergeLevels) on previously published data from mantle cell lymphoma cell lines, and on published benchmark synthetic data augmented with outliers. AVAILABILITY: Source code written in Matlab is available from http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~sshah/acgh.

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.

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 score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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