MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945751924 · doi:10.1142/s0218339019500128

PROBABILISTIC MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF DNA FRAGMENTATION

2019· article· en· W2945751924 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Pourmohammadi, Jamshid Abouei, Alagan Anpalagan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShotgun sequencingFragmentation (computing)DNAProbabilistic logicDNA fragmentationComputational biologyDNA sequencingShotgunComputer scienceBiologyAlgorithmMathematicsGeneticsGeneArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) sequencing has become indispensable to the modern biological and medicine sciences. DNA fragmentation is a preliminary step in a dominant technique called shotgun sequencing that provides a time and cost effective strategy for the DNA sequencing. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic model for the random DNA fragmentation and derive an average number of fragments with the suitable length along with the probability of covering the entire DNA strand through the de novo assembly or the referenced-based mapping assembly. We formulate the coverage problem in terms of the probability of bond breaking between nucleotides and the number of DNA molecules participating in the fragmentation process, and provide insights into the optimal DNA fragmentation. We obtain the lower bound for the minimum number of suitable fragments required to reconstruct the DNA strand with the specified reliability. We evaluate the derived results with our DNA Fragmentation Tool which demonstrate, the validity of these results based on our model. Finally, we update our model with respect to the fragments’ size distribution of real data.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological SystemsSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207