GenPipes: an open-source framework for distributed and scalable genomic analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT With the decreasing cost of sequencing and the rapid developments in genomics technologies and protocols, the need for validated bioinformatics software that enables efficient large-scale data processing is growing. Here we present GenPipes, a flexible Python-based framework that facilitates the development and deployment of multi-step workflows optimized for High Performance Computing clusters and the cloud. GenPipes already implements 12 validated and scalable pipelines for various genomics applications, including RNA-Seq, ChIP-Seq, DNA-Seq, Methyl-Seq, Hi-C, capture Hi-C, metagenomics and PacBio long read assembly. The software is available under a GPLv3 open source license and is continuously updated to follow recent advances in genomics and bioinformatics. The framework has been already configured on several servers and a docker image is also available to facilitate additional installations. In summary, GenPipes offers genomic researchers a simple method to analyze different types of data, customizable to their needs and resources, as well as the flexibility to create their own workflows.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".