MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165366478 · doi:10.1186/s13073-014-0101-7

A phylogeny-based sampling strategy and power calculator informs genome-wide associations study design for microbial pathogens

2014· article· en· W2165366478 on OpenAlexafffund
Maha Farhat, B. Jesse Shapiro, Samuel K. Sheppard, Caroline Colijn, Megan Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMycobacterium research and diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsWellcome Trust
KeywordsBiologyComputational biologyGenomeMycobacterium tuberculosisGenomicsHuman geneticsGeneticsEvolutionary biologyTuberculosisMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole genome sequencing is increasingly used to study phenotypic variation among infectious pathogens and to evaluate their relative transmissibility, virulence, and immunogenicity. To date, relatively little has been published on how and how many pathogen strains should be selected for studies associating phenotype and genotype. There are specific challenges when identifying genetic associations in bacteria which often comprise highly structured populations. Here we consider general methodological questions related to sampling and analysis focusing on clonal to moderately recombining pathogens. We propose that a matched sampling scheme constitutes an efficient study design, and provide a power calculator based on phylogenetic convergence. We demonstrate this approach by applying it to genomic datasets for two microbial pathogens: Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Campylobacter species.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome MedicineSame topicMycobacterium research and diagnosisFrench-language works237,207