MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517033688 · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2016.2598752

Machine Learned Replacement of N-Labels for Basecalled Sequences in DNA Barcoding

2016· article· en· W2517033688 on OpenAlexafffund
Y. T. Eddie, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Stefan C. Kremer

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of CanadaOntario Genomics InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsBarcodeCorrectnessDNA barcodingWord error rateComputer scienceSequence (biology)Sequence databaseSanger sequencingBiologyAutomationArtificial intelligenceComputational biologyDNA sequencingPattern recognition (psychology)DNAGeneticsAlgorithmGeneEvolutionary biologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a machine learning method that increases the number of identified bases in Sanger Sequencing. The system post-processes a KB basecalled chromatogram. It selects a recoverable subset of N-labels in the KB-called chromatogram to replace with basecalls (A,C,G,T). An N-label correction is defined given an additional read of the same sequence, and a human finished sequence. Corrections are added to the dataset when an alignment determines the additional read and human agree on the identity of the N-label. KB must also rate the replacement with quality value of in the additional read. Corrections are only available during system training. Developing the system, nearly 850,000 N-labels are obtained from Barcode of Life Datasystems, the premier database of genetic markers called DNA Barcodes. Increasing the number of correct bases improves reference sequence reliability, increases sequence identification accuracy, and assures analysis correctness. Keeping with barcoding standards, our system maintains an error rate of percent. Our system only applies corrections when it estimates low rate of error. Tested on this data, our automation selects and recovers: 79 percent of N-labels from COI (animal barcode); 80 percent from matK and rbcL (plant barcodes); and 58 percent from non-protein-coding sequences (across eukaryotes).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and BioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207