MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159337959 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-5-s9-s1

Identifying rare variants from exome scans: the GAW17 experience

2011· article· en· W2159337959 on OpenAlexaff
Saurabh Ghosh, Heike Bickeböller, Julia N. Bailey, Joan E. Bailey‐Wilson, Rita M. Cantor, Robert Culverhouse, Warwick Daw, Anita L. DeStefano, Corinne D. Engelman, Anthony L. Hinrichs, Jeanine J. Houwing‐Duistermaat, Inke R. König, Jack W. Kent, Nan M. Laird, Nathan Pankratz, Andrew D. Paterson, Elizabeth Pugh, Brian K. Suarez, Yan V. Sun, Alun Thomas, Nathan Tintle, Xiaofeng Zhu, Andreas Ziegler, Jean W. MacCluer, Laura Almasy

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsExomeExome sequencingComputational biologyData scienceMedicineProcess (computing)PhenotypeBioinformaticsComputer scienceGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 (GAW17) provided a platform for evaluating existing statistical genetic methods and for developing novel methods to analyze rare variants that modulate complex traits. In this article, we present an overview of the 1000 Genomes Project exome data and simulated phenotype data that were distributed to GAW17 participants for analyses, the different issues addressed by the participants, and the process of preparation of manuscripts resulting from the discussions during the workshop.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207