Novel metrics to measure coverage in whole exome sequencing datasets reveal local and global non-uniformity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) is a powerful clinical diagnostic tool for discovering the genetic basis of many diseases. A major shortcoming of WES is uneven coverage of sequence reads over the exome targets contributing to many low coverage regions, which hinders accurate variant calling. In this study, we devised two novel metrics, Cohort Coverage Sparseness (CCS) and Unevenness (U E ) Scores for a detailed assessment of the distribution of coverage of sequence reads. Employing these metrics we revealed non-uniformity of coverage and low coverage regions in the WES data generated by three different platforms. This non-uniformity of coverage is both local (coverage of a given exon across different platforms) and global (coverage of all exons across the genome in the given platform). The low coverage regions encompassing functionally important genes were often associated with high GC content, repeat elements and segmental duplications. While a majority of the problems associated with WES are due to the limitations of the capture methods, further refinements in WES technologies have the potential to enhance its clinical applications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".