Fusion-Bloom: fusion detection in assembled transcriptomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Presence or absence of gene fusions is one of the most important diagnostic markers in many cancer types. Consequently, fusion detection methods using various genomics data types, such as RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) are valuable tools for research and clinical applications. While information-rich RNA-seq data have proven to be instrumental in discovery of a number of hallmark fusion events, bioinformatics tools to detect fusions still have room for improvement. Here, we present Fusion-Bloom, a fusion detection method that leverages recent developments in de novo transcriptome assembly and assembly-based structural variant calling technologies (RNA-Bloom and PAVFinder, respectively). We benchmarked Fusion-Bloom against the performance of five other state-of-the-art fusion detection tools using multiple datasets. Overall, we observed Fusion-Bloom to display a good balance between detection sensitivity and specificity. We expect the tool to find applications in translational research and clinical genomics pipelines. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Fusion-Bloom is implemented as a UNIX Make utility, available at https://github.com/bcgsc/pavfinder and released under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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".