Novel metrics to measure coverage in whole exome sequencing datasets reveal local and global non-uniformity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) is a powerful clinical diagnostic tool for discovering the genetic basis of many diseases. A major shortcoming of WES is uneven coverage of sequence reads over the exome targets contributing to many low coverage regions, which hinders accurate variant calling. In this study, we devised two novel metrics, Cohort Coverage Sparseness (CCS) and Unevenness (U E ) Scores for a detailed assessment of the distribution of coverage of sequence reads. Employing these metrics we revealed non-uniformity of coverage and low coverage regions in the WES data generated by three different platforms. This non-uniformity of coverage is both local (coverage of a given exon across different platforms) and global (coverage of all exons across the genome in the given platform). The low coverage regions encompassing functionally important genes were often associated with high GC content, repeat elements and segmental duplications. While a majority of the problems associated with WES are due to the limitations of the capture methods, further refinements in WES technologies have the potential to enhance its clinical applications.
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".