Current RNA-seq methodology reporting limits reproducibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ribonucleic acid sequencing (RNA-seq) identifies and quantifies RNA molecules from a biological sample. Transformation from raw sequencing data to meaningful gene or isoform counts requires an in silico bioinformatics pipeline. Such pipelines are modular in nature, built using selected software and biological references. Software is usually chosen and parameterized according to the sequencing protocol and biological question. However, while biological and technical noise is alleviated through replicates, biases due to the pipeline and choice of biological references are often overlooked. Here, we show that the current standard practice prevents reproducibility in RNA-seq studies by failing to specify required methodological information. Peer-reviewed articles are intended to apply currently accepted scientific and methodological standards. Inasmuch as the bias-less and optimal RNA-seq pipeline is not perfectly defined, methodological information holds a meaningful role in defining the results. This work illustrates the need for a standardized and explicit display of methodological information in RNA-seq experiments.
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 | 0.032 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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".