Error analysis of the PacBio sequencing CCS reads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Third generation sequencing technologies such as Pacific Biosciences and Oxford Nanopore provide faster, cost-effective and simpler assembly process generating longer reads than the ones in the next generation sequencing. However, the error rates of these long reads are higher than those of the short reads, resulting in an error correcting process before the assembly such as using the Circular Consensus Sequencing (CCS) reads in PacBio sequencing machines. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic model for the error occurrence along the CCS reads. We obtain the error probability of any arbitrary nucleotide as well as the base calling Phred quality score of the nucleotides along the CCS reads in terms of the number of sub-reads. Furthermore, we derive the error rate distribution of the reads in relation to the pass number. It follows the binomial distribution which can be approximated by the normal distribution for long reads. Finally, we evaluate our proposed model by comparing it with three real PacBio datasets, namely, Lambda, and E. coli genomes, and Alzheimer’s disease targeted experiment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".