MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236822143 · doi:10.1186/s13059-016-0881-8

A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis

2016· review· en· W2236822143 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana Conesa, Pedro Madrigal, Sonia Tarazona, David Gómez-Cabrero, Alejandra Cervera, Andrew McPherson, Michał Wojciech Szcześniak, Daniel J. Gaffney, Laura L. Elo, Xuegong Zhang, A Mortazavi

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome biology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesEuropean Regional Development FundNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaSeventh Framework ProgrammeMedical Research CouncilScience for Life LaboratoryÅbo AkademiSimon Fraser UniversitySigrid Juséliuksen SäätiöTsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and TechnologyUniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w PoznaniuKarolinska InstitutetTurun YliopistoAcademy of FinlandTsinghua UniversityWellcome TrustHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsRNA-SeqBiologyComputational biologyExpression quantitative trait lociTranscriptomeFunctional genomicsGenomicsRNARNA splicingAlternative splicingGenePipeline (software)GeneticsGene expressionGenomeComputer scienceExonSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) has a wide variety of applications, but no single analysis pipeline can be used in all cases. We review all of the major steps in RNA-seq data analysis, including experimental design, quality control, read alignment, quantification of gene and transcript levels, visualization, differential gene expression, alternative splicing, functional analysis, gene fusion detection and eQTL mapping. We highlight the challenges associated with each step. We discuss the analysis of small RNAs and the integration of RNA-seq with other functional genomics techniques. Finally, we discuss the outlook for novel technologies that are changing the state of the art in transcriptomics.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations2,886
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome biologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207