MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884325264 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty621

MAVIS: merging, annotation, validation, and illustration of structural variants

2018· article· en· W2884325264 on OpenAlexafffund
Caralyn Reisle, Karen Mungall, Caleb Choo, Daniel Paulino, Dustin W. Bleile, Amir Muhammadzadeh, Andrew J. Mungall, Richard A. Moore, Inna Shlafman, Robin Coope, Stephen Pleasance, Yussanne Ma, Steven J.M. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
FundersGenome British ColumbiaBC Cancer FoundationGenome Canada
KeywordsAnnotationContext (archaeology)Computer scienceKey (lock)Computational biologyProcess (computing)GenomeData miningData scienceArtificial intelligenceBiologyGeneticsProgramming languageGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: Reliably identifying genomic rearrangements and interpreting their impact is a key step in understanding their role in human cancers and inherited genetic diseases. Many short read algorithmic approaches exist but all have appreciable false negative rates. A common approach is to evaluate the union of multiple tools increasing sensitivity, followed by filtering to retain specificity. Here we describe an application framework for the rapid generation of structural variant consensus, unique in its ability to visualize the genetic impact and context as well as process both genome and transcriptome data. Availability and implementation: http://mavis.bcgsc.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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207