deML: robust demultiplexing of Illumina sequences using a likelihood-based approach
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.
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.
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 it