MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205262153 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2021.0445

Finding Maximal Exact Matches Using the r-Index

2022· article· en· W4205262153 on OpenAlexaff
Massimiliano Rossi, Marco Antônio Oliva, Paola Bonizzoni, Ben Langmead, Travis Gagie, Christina Boucher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Sequence (biology)Computer scienceData structureIndex (typography)Key (lock)Space (punctuation)Code (set theory)k-merAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceData setGenomeProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficiently finding maximal exact matches (MEMs) between a sequence read and a database of genomes is a key first step in read alignment. But until recently, it was unknown how to build a data structure in space that supports efficient MEM finding, where r is the number of runs in the Burrows–Wheeler Transform. In 2021, Rossi et al. showed how to build a small auxiliary data structure called thresholds in addition to the r -index in space. This addition enables efficient MEM finding using the r -index. In this article, we present the tool that implements this solution, which we call MONI. Namely, we give a high-level view of the main components of the data structure and show how the source code can be downloaded, compiled, and used to find MEMs between a set of sequence reads and a set of genomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.011

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207