Anchor Clustering for million-scale immune repertoire sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The clustering of immune repertoire data is challenging due to the computational costs associated with a very large number of pairwise sequence comparisons. To overcome this limitation, we developed Anchor Clustering, an unsupervised clustering method designed to identify similar sequences from millions of antigen receptor gene sequences. First, a Point Packing algorithm is used to identify a set of maximally spaced anchor sequences. Then, the genetic distance of the remaining sequences to all anchor sequences is calculated and transformed into distance vectors. Finally, sequences are clustered using unsupervised clustering. This process is repeated iteratively until the resulting clusters are small enough so that pairwise distance comparisons can be made. Results Our results demonstrate that Anchor Clustering is faster than existing pairwise comparison clustering methods while providing similar clustering quality. With its flexible, memory-saving strategy, Anchor Clustering is capable of clustering millions of antigen receptor gene sequences in just a few minutes. Conclusions This method enables the meta-analysis of immune-repertoire data from different studies and could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the immune repertoire data space.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".