Variance in Variants: Propagating Genome Sequence Uncertainty into Phylogenetic Lineage Assignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic sequencing is subject to many different types of errors, but most analyses treat the resultant sequences as if they are known without error. Next generation sequencing methods rely on significantly larger numbers of reads than previous sequencing methods in exchange for a loss of accuracy in each individual read. Still, the coverage of such machines is imperfect and leaves uncertainty in many of the base calls. On top of this machine-level uncertainty, there is uncertainty induced by human error, such as errors in data entry or incorrect parameter settings. In this work, we demonstrate that the uncertainty in sequencing techniques will affect downstream analysis and propose a straightforward method to propagate the uncertainty. Our method uses a probabilistic matrix representation of individual sequences which incorporates base quality scores as a measure of uncertainty that naturally lead to resampling and replication as a framework for uncertainty propagation. With the matrix representation, resampling possible base calls according to quality scores provides a bootstrap- or prior distribution-like first step towards genetic analysis. Analyses based on these re-sampled sequences will include a more complete evaluation of the error involved in such analyses. We demonstrate our resampling method on SARS-CoV-2 data. The resampling procedures adds a linear computational cost to the analyses, but the large impact on the variance in downstream estimates makes it clear that ignoring this uncertainty may lead to overly confident conclusions. We show that SARS-CoV-2 lineage designations via Pangolin are much less certain than the bootstrap support reported by Pangolin would imply and the clock rate estimates for SARS-CoV-2 are much more variable than reported.
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 | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".