The ELIXIR Human Copy Number Variations Community: building bioinformatics infrastructure for research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns5:p> Copy number variations (CNVs) are major causative contributors both in the genesis of genetic diseases and human neoplasias. While “High-Throughput” sequencing technologies are increasingly becoming the primary choice for genomic screening analysis, their ability to efficiently detect CNVs is still heterogeneous and remains to be developed. The aim of this white paper is to provide a guiding framework for the future contributions of ELIXIR’s recently established <ns5:italic>h</ns5:italic> <ns5:italic>uman CNV Community,</ns5:italic> with implications beyond human disease diagnostics and population genomics. This white paper is the direct result of a strategy meeting that took place in September 2018 in Hinxton (UK) and involved representatives of 11 ELIXIR Nodes. The meeting led to the definition of priority objectives and tasks, to address a wide range of CNV-related challenges ranging from detection and interpretation to sharing and training. Here, we provide suggestions on how to align these tasks within the ELIXIR Platforms strategy, and on how to frame the activities of this new ELIXIR Community in the international context. </ns5:p>
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Open science Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.046 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.048 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".