MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148425737 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu558

BioBloom tools: fast, accurate and memory-efficient host species sequence screening using bloom filters

2014· article· en· W2148425737 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Chu, Sara Sadeghi, Anthony Raymond, Shaun D. Jackman, Ka Ming Nip, Richard Mar, Hamid Mohamadi, Yaron S.N. Butterfield, A. Gordon Robertson, İnanç Birol

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
FundersGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsBloom filterFalse positive paradoxComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Sequence (biology)Filter (signal processing)Host (biology)SoftwareFalse positives and false negativesData setData structureData miningAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large datasets can be screened for sequences from a specific organism, quickly and with low memory requirements, by a data structure that supports time- and memory-efficient set membership queries. Bloom filters offer such queries but require that false positives be controlled. We present BioBloom Tools, a Bloom filter-based sequence-screening tool that is faster than BWA, Bowtie 2 (popular alignment algorithms) and FACS (a membership query algorithm). It delivers accuracies comparable with these tools, controls false positives and has low memory requirements. Availability and implementaion: www.bcgsc.ca/platform/bioinfo/software/biobloomtools Contact: cjustin@bcgsc.ca or ibirol@bcgsc.ca Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations134
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207