Optimizing ChIP-seq peak detectors using visual labels and supervised machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Many peak detection algorithms have been proposed for ChIP-seq data analysis, but it is not obvious which algorithm and what parameters are optimal for any given dataset. In contrast, regions with and without obvious peaks can be easily labeled by visual inspection of aligned read counts in a genome browser. We propose a supervised machine learning approach for ChIP-seq data analysis, using labels that encode qualitative judgments about which genomic regions contain or do not contain peaks. The main idea is to manually label a small subset of the genome, and then learn a model that makes consistent peak predictions on the rest of the genome. Results: We created 7 new histone mark datasets with 12 826 visually determined labels, and analyzed 3 existing transcription factor datasets. We observed that default peak detection parameters yield high false positive rates, which can be reduced by learning parameters using a relatively small training set of labeled data from the same experiment type. We also observed that labels from different people are highly consistent. Overall, these data indicate that our supervised labeling method is useful for quantitatively training and testing peak detection algorithms. Availability and Implementation: Labeled histone mark data http://cbio.ensmp.fr/~thocking/chip-seq-chunk-db/ , R package to compute the label error of predicted peaks https://github.com/tdhock/PeakError. Contacts: toby.hocking@mail.mcgill.ca or guil.bourque@mcgill.ca. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".