Trio-R: a script for assessing maternity and paternity in trio studies performed on Agilent chromosomal microarrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trio studies, which involve the testing of samples from a proband and both parents, are often used by clinical laboratories to help with the classification of genetic variants, including copy number variants. In order for the results of the trio study to be valid, the mother and father must be the true biological parents of the proband. As such, non-paternity and sample mix-ups are potential sources of error. To address these potential issues, we developed a computer script to accurately assess maternity and paternity using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data generated by Agilent chromosomal microarrays, a platform-of-choice for clinical copy number testing. RESULTS: We assessed the performance of the script on 10 putative trios tested at our laboratory, and found that the numbers and proportions of discordant SNPs were useful for determining parental relationships. The results of the assessment also confirmed maternity and paternity in the 10 trios tested, and by doing so essentially excluded pre-analytical sample switching in these 30 samples. CONCLUSIONS: Computational analysis of SNP data can be implemented as a quality control measure for trio testing performed on Agilent microarrays.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".