MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333196156 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btw178

Cell-free DNA fragment-size distribution analysis for non-invasive prenatal CNV prediction

2016· article· en· W2333196156 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aryan Arbabi, Ladislav Rampášek, Michael Brudno

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopy-number variationSingle-nucleotide polymorphismSNPCell-free fetal DNAGenomeBiologyGeneticsSNP arrayHuman genomeComputational biologyPrenatal diagnosisFetusGeneGenotypePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive detection of aneuploidies in a fetal genome through analysis of cell-free DNA circulating in the maternal plasma is becoming a routine clinical test. Such tests, which rely on analyzing the read coverage or the allelic ratios at single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) loci, are not sensitive enough for smaller sub-chromosomal abnormalities due to sequencing biases and paucity of SNPs in a genome. RESULTS: We have developed an alternative framework for identifying sub-chromosomal copy number variations in a fetal genome. This framework relies on the size distribution of fragments in a sample, as fetal-origin fragments tend to be smaller than those of maternal origin. By analyzing the local distribution of the cell-free DNA fragment sizes in each region, our method allows for the identification of sub-megabase CNVs, even in the absence of SNP positions. To evaluate the accuracy of our method, we used a plasma sample with the fetal fraction of 13%, down-sampled it to samples with coverage of 10X-40X and simulated samples with CNVs based on it. Our method had a perfect accuracy (both specificity and sensitivity) for detecting 5 Mb CNVs, and after reducing the fetal fraction (to 11%, 9% and 7%), it could correctly identify 98.82-100% of the 5 Mb CNVs and had a true-negative rate of 95.29-99.76%. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our source code is available on GitHub at https://github.com/compbio-UofT/FSDA CONTACT: : brudno@cs.toronto.edu.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207