MSeq-CNV: accurate detection of Copy Number Variation from Sequencing of Multiple samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently a few tools are capable of detecting genome-wide Copy Number Variations (CNVs) based on sequencing of multiple samples. Although aberrations in mate pair insertion sizes provide additional hints for the CNV detection based on multiple samples, the majority of the current tools rely only on the depth of coverage. Here, we propose a new algorithm (MSeq-CNV) which allows detecting common CNVs across multiple samples. MSeq-CNV applies a mixture density for modeling aberrations in depth of coverage and abnormalities in the mate pair insertion sizes. Each component in this mixture density applies a Binomial distribution for modeling the number of mate pairs with aberration in the insertion size and also a Poisson distribution for emitting the read counts, in each genomic position. MSeq-CNV is applied on simulated data and also on real data of six HapMap individuals with high-coverage sequencing, in 1000 Genomes Project. These individuals include a CEU trio of European ancestry and a YRI trio of Nigerian ethnicity. Ancestry of these individuals is studied by clustering the identified CNVs. MSeq-CNV is also applied for detecting CNVs in two samples with low-coverage sequencing in 1000 Genomes Project and six samples form the Simons Genome Diversity Project.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".