Reproducibility and Reuse of Adaptive Immune Receptor Repertoire Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing (HTS) of immunoglobulin (B-cell receptor, antibody) and T-cell receptor repertoires has increased dramatically since the technique was introduced in 2009 (1-3). This experimental approach explores the maturation of the adaptive immune system and its response to antigens, pathogens, and disease conditions in exquisite detail. It holds significant promise for diagnostic and therapy-guiding applications. New technology often spreads rapidly, sometimes more rapidly than the understanding of how to make the products of that technology reliable, reproducible, or usable by others. As complex technologies have developed, scientific communities have come together to adopt common standards, protocols, and policies for generating and sharing data sets, such as the MIAME protocols developed for microarray experiments. The Adaptive Immune Receptor Repertoire (AIRR) Community formed in 2015 to address similar issues for HTS data of immune repertoires. The purpose of this perspective is to provide an overview of the AIRR Community's founding principles and present the progress that the AIRR Community has made in developing standards of practice and data sharing protocols. Finally, and most important, we invite all interested parties to join this effort to facilitate sharing and use of these powerful data sets (join@airr-community.org).
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 | 0.205 | 0.332 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".