BAMQL: a query language for extracting reads from BAM files
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is extremely common to need to select a subset of reads from a BAM file based on their specific properties. Typically, a user unpacks the BAM file to a text stream using SAMtools, parses and filters the lines using AWK, then repacks them using SAMtools. This process is tedious and error-prone. In particular, when working with many columns of data, mix-ups are common and the bit field containing the flags is unintuitive. There are several libraries for reading BAM files, such as Bio-SamTools for Perl and pysam for Python. Both allow access to the BAM's read information and can filter reads, but require substantial boilerplate code; this is high overhead for mostly ad hoc filtering. RESULTS: We have created a query language that gathers reads using a collection of predicates and common logical connectives. Queries run faster than equivalents and can be compiled to native code for embedding in larger programs. CONCLUSIONS: BAMQL provides a user-friendly, powerful and performant way to extract subsets of BAM files for ad hoc analyses or integration into applications. The query language provides a collection of predicates beyond those in SAMtools, and more flexible connectives.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.027 |
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".