GenPipes: an open-source framework for distributed and scalable genomic analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. FINDINGS: 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 sequencing, chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing, DNA sequencing, methylation sequencing, Hi-C, capture Hi-C, metagenomics, and Pacific Biosciences 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 already been configured on several servers, and a Docker image is also available to facilitate additional installations. CONCLUSIONS: GenPipes offers genomics 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.015 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".