MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993248623 · doi:10.1101/863035

ExpansionHunter Denovo: A computational method for locating known and novel repeat expansions in short-read sequencing data

2019· preprint· en· W2993248623 on OpenAlexaff
Egor Dolzhenko, Mark F. Bennett, Phillip A. Richmond, Brett Trost, Sai Chen, Joke J.F.A. van Vugt, Charlotte Nguyen, Giuseppe Narzisi, Vladimir G. Gainullin, Andrew M. Gross, Bryan R. Lajoie, Ryan J. Taft, Wyeth W. Wasserman, Stephen W. Scherer, Jan H. Veldink, David Bentley, Ryan K. C. Yuen, Melanie Bahlo, Michael A. Eberle

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of New BrunswickBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTandem repeatComputational biologyGenomeGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Expansions of short tandem repeats are responsible for over 40 monogenic disorders, and undoubtedly many more pathogenic repeat expansions (REs) remain to be discovered. Existing methods for detecting REs in short-read sequencing data require predefined repeat catalogs. However recent discoveries have emphasized the need for detection methods that do not require candidate repeats to be specified in advance. To address this need, we introduce ExpansionHunter Denovo, an efficient catalog-free method for genome-wide detection of REs. Analysis of real and simulated data shows that our method can identify large expansions of 41 out of 44 pathogenic repeats, including nine recently reported non-reference REs not discoverable via existing methods. ExpansionHunter Denovo is freely available at https://github.com/Illumina/ExpansionHunterDenovo

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207