A Distributed Whole Genome Sequencing Benchmark Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population sequencing often requires collaboration across a distributed network of sequencing centers for the timely processing of thousands of samples. In such massive efforts, it is important that participating scientists can be confident that the accuracy of the sequence data produced is not affected by which center generates the data. A study was conducted across three established sequencing centers, located in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, constituting Canada's Genomics Enterprise (www.cgen.ca). Whole genome sequencing was performed at each center, on three genomic DNA replicates from three well-characterized cell lines. Secondary analysis pipelines employed by each site were applied to sequence data from each of the sites, resulting in three datasets for each of four variables (cell line, replicate, sequencing center, and analysis pipeline), for a total of 81 datasets. These datasets were each assessed according to multiple quality metrics including concordance with benchmark variant truth sets to assess consistent quality across all three conditions for each variable. Three-way concordance analysis of variants across conditions for each variable was performed. Our results showed that the variant concordance between datasets differing only by sequencing center was similar to the concordance for datasets differing only by replicate, using the same analysis pipeline. We also showed that the statistically significant differences between datasets result from the analysis pipeline used, which can be unified and updated as new approaches become available. We conclude that genome sequencing projects can rely on the quality and reproducibility of aggregate data generated across a network of distributed sites.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".