MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019597618 · doi:10.1186/s13059-020-02017-z

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

2020· article· en· W3019597618 on OpenAlexafffund
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

VenueGenome biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBC Children's HospitalSickKids FoundationUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenCanada Research Chairs
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputational biologyBiologyGenomeComputer scienceR packageGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Repeat expansions are responsible for over 40 monogenic disorders, and undoubtedly more pathogenic repeat expansions remain to be discovered. Existing methods for detecting repeat expansions in short-read sequencing data require predefined repeat catalogs. Recent discoveries emphasize the need for methods that do not require pre-specified candidate repeats. To address this need, we introduce ExpansionHunter Denovo, an efficient catalog-free method for genome-wide repeat expansion detection. 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 repeat expansions not discoverable via existing methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations227
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome biologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207