MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129766253 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msn095

Bayesian Inference of Errors in Ancient DNA Caused by Postmortem Degradation

2008· article· en· W2129766253 on OpenAlexaff
Ligia Mateiu, Bruce Rannala

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAncient DNABiologyInferenceComputational biologyDNAMarkov chainDNA sequencingBayesian probabilityGeneticsAlgorithmEvolutionary biologyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods for extracting and amplifying sequences using ancient DNA (aDNA) can be prone to errors caused by postmortem modifications of the DNA strand. A new statistical method is developed for predicting errors in aDNA sequences caused by such processes. In addition to the canonical DNA substitution model parameters, a discrete Markov chain is used to describe nucleotide substitutions occurring via postmortem degradation of the aDNA sequences. A computer program, BYPASSR-degr, was developed implementing the method and was used in subsequent analyses of simulated data sets under the new model. Simulation studies show that the new method can be powerful and accurate in identifying damaged sites. The method is applied to analyze aDNA sequences of Etruscans, Adélie penguins, and horses. No significant signals of degradation were observed at any sites of the aDNA sequences we analyzed.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207