MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180921306 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv587

CSSSCL: a python package that uses combined sequence similarity scores for accurate taxonomic classification of long and short sequence reads

2015· article· en· W2180921306 on OpenAlexafffund
Ivan Borozan, Vincent Ferretti

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersGovernment of OntarioOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsPython (programming language)Sequence (biology)Computer scienceSimilarity (geometry)R packageComputational biologyArtificial intelligenceBiologyProgramming languageGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Sequence comparison of genetic material between known and unknown organisms plays a crucial role in genomics, metagenomics and phylogenetic analysis. The emerging long-read sequencing technologies can now produce reads of tens of kilobases in length that promise a more accurate assessment of their origin. To facilitate the classification of long and short DNA sequences, we have developed a Python package that implements a new sequence classification model that we have demonstrated to improve the classification accuracy when compared with other state of the art classification methods. For the purpose of validation, and to demonstrate its usefulness, we test the combined sequence similarity score classifier (CSSSCL) using three different datasets, including a metagenomic dataset composed of short reads. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Package's source code and test datasets are available under the GPLv3 license at https://github.com/oicr-ibc/cssscl. CONTACT: ivan.borozan@oicr.on.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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207