MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139994564 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019368

ALG: Automated Genotype Calling of Luminex Assays

2011· article· en· W2139994564 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu Bourgey, Mathieu Larivière, Chantal Richer, Daniel Sinnett

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGenotypingSNPSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypeSoftwareConcordanceReproducibilityComputer scienceSNP genotypingComputational biologyGeneticsData miningBiologyStatisticsMathematicsOperating systemGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are the most commonly used polymorphic markers in genetics studies. Among the different platforms for SNP genotyping, Luminex is one of the less exploited mainly due to the lack of a robust (semi-automated and replicable) freely available genotype calling software. Here we describe a clustering algorithm that provides automated SNP calls for Luminex genotyping assays. We genotyped 3 SNPs in a cohort of 330 childhood leukemia patients, 200 parents of patient and 325 healthy individuals and used the Automated Luminex Genotyping (ALG) algorithm for SNP calling. ALG genotypes were called twice to test for reproducibility and were compared to sequencing data to test for accuracy. Globally, this analysis demonstrates the accuracy (99.6%) of the method, its reproducibility (99.8%) and the low level of no genotyping calls (3.4%). The high efficiency of the method proves that ALG is a suitable alternative to the current commercial software. ALG is semi-automated, and provides numerical measures of confidence for each SNP called, as well as an effective graphical plot. Moreover ALG can be used either through a graphical user interface, requiring no specific informatics knowledge, or through command line with access to the open source code. The ALG software has been implemented in R and is freely available for non-commercial use either at http://alg.sourceforge.net or by request to mathieu.bourgey@umontreal.ca.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207