Accuracy of programs for the determination of HLA alleles from NGS data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes code for proteins that play a central role in the function of the immune system by presenting peptide antigens to T cells. As HLA genes show extremely high genetic polymorphism, HLA typing on the allele level is demanding and is based on DNA sequencing. Determination of HLA alleles is warranted as many HLA alleles are major genetic factors that confer susceptibility to autoimmune diseases and is important for the matching of HLA alleles in transplantation. Here, we compared the accuracy of several published HLA-typing algorithms that are based on next generation sequencing (NGS) data. As genome screens are becoming increasingly routine in research, we wanted to test how well HLA alleles can be deduced from genome screens not designed for HLA typing. The accuracies were assessed using datasets consisting of NGS data produced using the ImmunoSEQ platform, including the full 4 Mbp HLA segment, from 94 stem cell transplantation patients and exome sequences from the 1000 Genomes collection. When used with the default settings none of the methods gave perfect results for all the genes and samples. However, we found that ensemble prediction of the results or modifications of the settings could be used to improve accuracy. Most of the algorithms did not perform very well for the exome-only data. The results indicate that the use of these algorithms for accurate HLA allele determination based on NGS data is not straightforward.
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 | 0.020 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".