PRISM: Pair-read informed split-read mapping for base-pair level detection of insertion, deletion and structural variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The development of high-throughput sequencing technologies has enabled novel methods for detecting structural variants (SVs). Current methods are typically based on depth of coverage or pair-end mapping clusters. However, most of these only report an approximate location for each SV, rather than exact breakpoints. RESULTS: We have developed pair-read informed split mapping (PRISM), a method that identifies SVs and their precise breakpoints from whole-genome resequencing data. PRISM uses a split-alignment approach informed by the mapping of paired-end reads, hence enabling breakpoint identification of multiple SV types, including arbitrary-sized inversions, deletions and tandem duplications. Comparisons to previous datasets and simulation experiments illustrate PRISM's high sensitivity, while PCR validations of PRISM results, including previously uncharacterized variants, indicate an overall precision of ~90%. AVAILABILITY: PRISM is freely available at http://compbio.cs.toronto.edu/prism.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".