Development of bioinformatics resources for display and analysis of copy number and other structural variants in the human genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery of an abundance of copy number variants (CNVs; gains and losses of DNA sequences >1 kb) and other structural variants in the human genome is influencing the way research and diagnostic analyses are being designed and interpreted. As such, comprehensive databases with the most relevant information will be critical to fully understand the results and have impact in a diverse range of disciplines ranging from molecular biology to clinical genetics. Here, we describe the development of bioinformatics resources to facilitate these studies. The Database of Genomic Variants (http://projects.tcag.ca/variation/) is a comprehensive catalogue of structural variation in the human genome. The database currently contains 1,267 regions reported to contain copy number variation or inversions in apparently healthy human cases. We describe the current contents of the database and how it can serve as a resource for interpretation of array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) and other DNA copy imbalance data. We also present the structure of the database, which was built using a new data modeling methodology termed Cross-Referenced Tables (XRT). This is a generic and easy-to-use platform, which is strong in handling textual data and complex relationships. Web-based presentation tools have been built allowing publication of XRT data to the web immediately along with rapid sharing of files with other databases and genome browsers. We also describe a novel tool named eFISH (electronic fluorescence in situ hybridization) (http://projects.tcag.ca/efish/), a BLAST-based program that was developed to facilitate the choice of appropriate clones for FISH and CGH experiments, as well as interpretation of results in which genomic DNA probes are used in hybridization-based experiments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.027 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".