MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948452166 · doi:10.1101/664623

A robust benchmark for germline structural variant detection

2019· preprint· en· W2948452166 on OpenAlexaff
Justin M. Zook, Nancy F. Hansen, Nathan D. Olson, Lesley M. Chapman, James C. Mullikin, Chunlin Xiao, Stephen T. Sherry, Sergey Koren, Adam M. Phillippy, Paul C. Boutros, Sayed Mohammad Ebrahim Sahraeian, Vincent Huang, Alexandre Rouette, Noah Alexander, Christopher E. Mason, Iman Hajirasouliha, Camir Ricketts, Joyce Lee, Rick Tearle, Ian T. Fiddes, Álvaro Martínez Barrio, Jeremiah A. Wala, Andrew Carroll, Noushin Ghaffari, Oscar L. Rodriguez, Ali Bashir, Shaun D. Jackman, John J. Farrell, Aaron M. Wenger, Can Alkan, Arda Söylev, Michael C. Schatz, Shilpa Garg, George M. Church, Tobias Marschall, Ken Chen, Xian Fan, Adam C. English, Jeffrey Rosenfeld, Weichen Zhou, Ryan E. Mills, Jay M. Sage, Jennifer R. Davis, Michael D. Kaiser, John S. Oliver, Anthony P. Catalano, Mark Chaisson, Noah Spies, Fritz J. Sedlazeck, Marc Salit

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)False positive paradoxStructural variationConcordanceComputational biologySet (abstract data type)Computer scienceBiology1000 Genomes ProjectGeneticsGenomeData miningArtificial intelligenceGenotypeGeneSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New technologies and analysis methods are enabling genomic structural variants (SVs) to be detected with ever-increasing accuracy, resolution, and comprehensiveness. Translating these methods to routine research and clinical practice requires robust benchmark sets. We developed the first benchmark set for identification of both false negative and false positive germline SVs, which complements recent efforts emphasizing increasingly comprehensive characterization of SVs. To create this benchmark for a broadly consented son in a Personal Genome Project trio with broadly available cells and DNA, the Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) Consortium integrated 19 sequence-resolved variant calling methods, both alignment- and de novo assembly-based, from short-, linked-, and long-read sequencing, as well as optical and electronic mapping. The final benchmark set contains 12745 isolated, sequence-resolved insertion and deletion calls ≥50 base pairs (bp) discovered by at least 2 technologies or 5 callsets, genotyped as heterozygous or homozygous variants by long reads. The Tier 1 benchmark regions, for which any extra calls are putative false positives, cover 2.66 Gbp and 9641 SVs supported by at least one diploid assembly. Support for SVs was assessed using svviz with short-, linked-, and long-read sequence data. In general, there was strong support from multiple technologies for the benchmark SVs, with 90 % of the Tier 1 SVs having support in reads from more than one technology. The Mendelian genotype error rate was 0.3 %, and genotype concordance with manual curation was >98.7 %. We demonstrate the utility of the benchmark set by showing it reliably identifies both false negatives and false positives in high-quality SV callsets from short-, linked-, and long-read sequencing and optical mapping.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations69
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207