Deletion Detection Method Using the Distribution of Insert Size and a Precise Alignment Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homozygous and heterozygous deletions commonly exist in the human genome. For current structural variation detection tools, it is significant to determine whether a deletion is homozygous or heterozygous. However, the problems of sequencing errors, micro-homologies, and micro-insertions prohibit common alignment tools from identifying accurate breakpoint locations, and often result in detecting false structural variations. In this study, we present a novel deletion detection tool called Sprites2. Comparing with Sprites, Sprites2 makes the following modifications: (1) The distribution of insert size is used in Sprites2, which can identify the type of deletions and improve the accuracy of deletion calls. (2) A precise alignment method based on AGE (one algorithm simultaneously aligning 5' and 3' ends between two sequences) is adopted in Sprites2 to identify breakpoints, which is helpful to resolve the problems introduced by sequencing errors, micro-homologies, and micro-insertions. In order to test and verify the performance of Sprites2, some simulated and real datasets are adopted in our experiments, and Sprites2 is compared with five popular tools. The experimental results show that Sprites2 can improve the performance of deletion detection. Sprites2 can be downloaded from https://github.com/zhangzhen/sprites2.
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 | 0.000 | 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".