A critical assessment of topologically associating domain prediction tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topologically associating domains (TADs) have been proposed to be the basic unit of chromosome folding and have been shown to play key roles in genome organization and gene regulation. Several different tools are available for TAD prediction, but their properties have never been thoroughly assessed. In this manuscript, we compare the output of seven different TAD prediction tools on two published Hi-C data sets. TAD predictions varied greatly between tools in number, size distribution and other biological properties. Assessed against a manual annotation of TADs, individual TAD boundary predictions were found to be quite reliable, but their assembly into complete TAD structures was much less so. In addition, many tools were sensitive to sequencing depth and resolution of the interaction frequency matrix. This manuscript provides users and designers of TAD prediction tools with information that will help guide the choice of tools and the interpretation of their predictions.
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 | 0.071 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".