Detection of homozygous and hemizygous complete or partial exon deletions by whole-exome sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection of copy number variations (CNVs) in whole-exome sequencing (WES) data is important, as CNVs may underlie a number of human genetic disorders. The recently developed HMZDelFinder algorithm can detect rare homozygous and hemizygous (HMZ) deletions in WES data more effectively than other widely used tools. Here, we present HMZDelFinder_opt, an approach that outperforms HMZDelFinder for the detection of HMZ deletions, including partial exon deletions in particular, in WES data from laboratory patient collections that were generated over time in different experimental conditions. We show that using an optimized reference control set of WES data, based on a PCA-derived Euclidean distance for coverage, strongly improves the detection of HMZ complete exon deletions both in real patients carrying validated disease-causing deletions and in simulated data. Furthermore, we develop a sliding window approach enabling HMZDelFinder_opt to identify HMZ partial deletions of exons that are undiscovered by HMZDelFinder. HMZDelFinder_opt is a timely and powerful approach for detecting HMZ deletions, particularly partial exon deletions, in WES data from inherently heterogeneous laboratory patient collections.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".