deML: robust demultiplexing of Illumina sequences using a likelihood-based approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Pooling multiple samples increases the efficiency and lowers the cost of DNA sequencing. One approach to multiplexing is to use short DNA indices to uniquely identify each sample. After sequencing, reads must be assigned in silico to the sample of origin, a process referred to as demultiplexing. Demultiplexing software typically identifies the sample of origin using a fixed number of mismatches between the read index and a reference index set. This approach may fail or misassign reads when the sequencing quality of the indices is poor. RESULTS: We introduce deML, a maximum likelihood algorithm that demultiplexes Illumina sequences. deML computes the likelihood of an observed index sequence being derived from a specified sample. A quality score which reflects the probability of the assignment being correct is generated for each read. Using these quality scores, even very problematic datasets can be demultiplexed and an error threshold can be set. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: deML is freely available for use under the GPL (http://bioinf.eva.mpg.de/deml/).
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.014 |
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".