VisRseq: R-based visual framework for analysis of sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several tools have been developed to enable biologists to perform initial browsing and exploration of sequencing data. However the computational tool set for further analyses often requires significant computational expertise to use and many of the biologists with the knowledge needed to interpret these data must rely on programming experts. RESULTS: We present VisRseq, a framework for analysis of sequencing datasets that provides a computationally rich and accessible framework for integrative and interactive analyses without requiring programming expertise. We achieve this aim by providing R apps, which offer a semi-auto generated and unified graphical user interface for computational packages in R and repositories such as Bioconductor. To address the interactivity limitation inherent in R libraries, our framework includes several native apps that provide exploration and brushing operations as well as an integrated genome browser. The apps can be chained together to create more powerful analysis workflows. CONCLUSIONS: To validate the usability of VisRseq for analysis of sequencing data, we present two case studies performed by our collaborators and report their workflow and insights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.023 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".