MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162671544 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt261

pyGenClean: efficient tool for genetic data clean up before association testing

2013· article· en· W2162671544 on OpenAlexaff
Louis‐Philippe Lemieux Perreault, Sylvie Provost, Marc‐André Legault, Amina Barhdadi, Marie‐Pierre Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPython (programming language)Computer scienceGenotypingData miningSoftwareSource codePipeline (software)DocumentationData qualityOperating systemGenotypeBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Genetic association studies making use of high-throughput genotyping arrays need to process large amounts of data in the order of millions of markers per experiment. The first step of any analysis with genotyping arrays is typically the conduct of a thorough data clean up and quality control to remove poor quality genotypes and generate metrics to inform and select individuals for downstream statistical analysis. We have developed pyGenClean, a bioinformatics tool to facilitate and standardize the genetic data clean up pipeline with genotyping array data. In conjunction with a source batch-queuing system, the tool minimizes data manipulation errors, accelerates the completion of the data clean up process and provides informative plots and metrics to guide decision making for statistical analysis. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: pyGenClean is an open source Python 2.7 software and is freely available, along with documentation and examples, from http://www.statgen.org.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.033

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207