MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213420921 · doi:10.3390/genes12111809

Post-Alignment Adjustment and Its Automation

2021· article· en· W3213420921 on OpenAlexafffund
Xuhua Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMultiple sequence alignmentPairwise comparisonAlignment-free sequence analysisSequence (biology)Computational biologyComputer scienceSequence alignmentAutomationPosition (finance)Phylogenetic treeGeneticsBiologyArtificial intelligenceData miningPeptide sequenceGeneEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) is the basis for almost all sequence comparison and molecular phylogenetic inferences. Large-scale genomic analyses are typically associated with automated progressive MSA without subsequent manual adjustment, which itself is often error-prone because of the lack of a consistent and explicit criterion. Here, I outlined several commonly encountered alignment errors that cannot be avoided by progressive MSA for nucleotide, amino acid, and codon sequences. Methods that could be automated to fix such alignment errors were then presented. I emphasized the utility of position weight matrix as a new tool for MSA refinement and illustrated its usage by refining the MSA of nucleotide and amino acid sequences. The main advantages of the position weight matrix approach include (1) its use of information from all sequences, in contrast to other commonly used methods based on pairwise alignment scores and inconsistency measures, and (2) its speedy computation, making it suitable for a large number of long viral genomic sequences.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207