The genotype list string code syntax for exchanging <scp>nomenclature‐level</scp> genotyping results in clinical and research data management and analysis systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nomenclatures used to describe HLA and killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptor (KIR) alleles distinguish unique nucleotide and peptide sequences, and patterns of expression, but are insufficient for describing genotyping results, as description of ambiguities and relations across loci require terminology beyond allele names. The genotype list (GL) String grammar describes genotyping results for genetic systems with defined nomenclatures, like HLA and KIR, documenting what is known and unknown about a given genotyping result. However, the accuracy of a GL String is dependent on the reference database version under which it was generated. Here, we describe the GL string code (GLSC) system, which associates each GL String with meta-data describing the specific reference context in which the GL String was created, and in which it should be interpreted. GLSC is a defined syntax for exchanging GL Strings in the context of a specific gene-family namespace, allele-name code-system, and pertinent reference database version. GLSC allows HLA and KIR genotyping data to be transmitted, parsed and interpreted in the appropriate context, in an unambiguous manner, on modern data-systems, including Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource systems. Technical specification for GLSC can be found at https://glstring.org.
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.082 |
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".