MEC: Misassembly Error Correction in Contigs based on Distribution of Paired-End Reads and Statistics of GC-contents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The de novo assembly tools aim at reconstructing genomes from next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. However, the assembly tools usually generate a large amount of contigs containing many misassemblies, which are caused by problems of repetitive regions, chimeric reads, and sequencing errors. As they can improve the accuracy of assembly results, detecting and correcting the misassemblies in contigs are appealing, yet challenging. In this study, a novel method, called MEC, is proposed to identify and correct misassemblies in contigs. Based on the insert size distribution of paired-end reads and the statistical analysis of GC-contents, MEC can identify more misassemblies accurately. We evaluate our MEC with the metrics (NA50, NGA50) on four datasets, compared it with the most available misassembly correction tools, and carry out experiments to analyze the influence of MEC on scaffolding results, which shows that MEC can reduce misassemblies effectively and result in quantitative improvements in scaffolding quality. MEC is publicly available at https://github.com/bioinfomaticsCSU/MEC.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it