MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281626299 · doi:10.3390/dna2020009

Physlr: Next-Generation Physical Maps

2022· article· en· W4281626299 on OpenAlexafffund
Amirhossein Afshinfard, Shaun D. Jackman, Johnathan Wong, Lauren Coombe, Justin Chu, Vladimir Nikolić, Gokce Dilek, Yaman Malkoç, René L. Warren, İnanç Birol

Bibliographic record

VenueDNA · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaGenome British Columbia
KeywordsConstruct (python library)GenomeComputer scienceSequence assemblyContiguityShotgun sequencingComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsProgramming languageGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While conventional physical maps helped build most of the reference genomes we use today, generating the maps was prohibitively expensive, and the technology was abandoned in favor of whole-genome shotgun sequencing (WGS). However, genome assemblies generated using WGS data are often less contiguous. We introduce Physlr, a tool that leverages long-range information provided by some WGS technologies to construct next-generation physical maps. These maps have many potential applications in genome assembly and analysis, including, but not limited to, scaffolding. In this study, using experimental linked-read datasets from two humans, we used Physlr to construct chromosome-scale physical maps (NGA50s of 52 Mbp and 70 Mbp). We also demonstrated how these physical maps can help scaffold human genome assemblies generated using various sequencing technologies and assembly tools. Across all experiments, Physlr substantially improved the contiguity of baseline assemblies over state-of-the-art linked-read scaffolders.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.015

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDNA→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→