LRCstats, a tool for evaluating long reads correction methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Third-generation sequencing (TGS) platforms that generate long reads, such as PacBio and Oxford Nanopore technologies, have had a dramatic impact on genomics research. However, despite recent improvements, TGS reads suffer from high-error rates and the development of read correction methods is an active field of research. This motivates the need to develop tools that can evaluate the accuracy of noisy long reads correction tools. RESULTS: We introduce LRCstats, a tool that measures the accuracy of long reads correction tools. LRCstats takes advantage of long reads simulators that provide each simulated read with an alignment to the reference genome segment they originate from, and does not rely on a step of mapping corrected reads onto the reference genome. This allows for the measurement of the accuracy of the correction while being consistent with the actual errors introduced in the simulation process used to generate noisy reads. We illustrate the usefulness of LRCstats by analyzing the accuracy of four hybrid correction methods for PacBio long reads over three datasets. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/cchauve/lrcstats. CONTACT: laseanl@sfu.ca or cedric.chauve@sfu.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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".