Valection: Design Optimization for Validation and Verification Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Platform-specific error profiles necessitate confirmatory studies where predictions made on data generated using one technology are additionally verified by processing the same samples on an orthogonal technology. In disciplines that rely heavily on high-throughput data generation, such as genomics, reducing the impact of false positive and false negative rates in results is a top priority. However, verifying all predictions can be costly and redundant, and testing a subset of findings is often used to estimate the true error profile. To determine how to create subsets of predictions for validation that maximize inference of global error profiles, we developed Valection, a software program that implements multiple strategies for the selection of verification candidates. Results To evaluate these selection strategies, we obtained 261 sets of somatic mutation calls from a single-nucleotide variant caller benchmarking challenge where 21 teams competed on whole-genome sequencing datasets of three computationally-simulated tumours. By using synthetic data, we had complete ground truth of the tumours’ mutations and, therefore, we were able to accurately determine how estimates from the selected subset of verification candidates compared to the complete prediction set. We found that selection strategy performance depends on several verification study characteristics. In particular the verification budget of the experiment ( i.e. how many candidates can be selected) is shown to influence estimates. Conclusions The Valection framework is flexible, allowing for the implementation of additional selection algorithms in the future. Its applicability extends to any discipline that relies on experimental verification and will benefit from the optimization of verification candidate selection.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".