MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NCBench: providing an open, reproducible, transparent, adaptable, and continuous benchmark approach for DNA-sequencing-based variant calling

2023· preprint· en· W4386600212 on OpenAlexaff
Friederike Hanssen, Gisela Gabernet, Nicholas H. Smith, Christian Mertes, Avirup Guha Neogi, Leon Brandhoff, Anna Ossowski, Janine Altmueller, Kerstin Becker, A. Petzold, Marc Sturm, Tyll Stöcker, Sugirthan Sivalingam, Fabian Brand, Axel Schmidt, Andreas Buneß, Alexander J. Probst, Susanne Motameny, Johannes Köster

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyUniversität Duisburg-EssenDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsBenchmarkingComputer scienceOpen sourceWorkflowMerge (version control)Open scienceData sciencePrecision and recallData miningMachine learningInformation retrievalDatabaseSoftwareOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the results of the human genomic small variant calling benchmarking initiative of the German Research Foundation (DFG) funded Next Generation Sequencing Competence Network (NGS-CN) and the German Human Genome-Phenome Archive (GHGA). In this effort, we developed NCBench, a continuous benchmarking platform for the evaluation of small genomic variant callsets in terms of recall, precision, and false positive/negative error patterns. NCBench is implemented as a continuously re-evaluated open-source repository. We show that it is possible to entirely rely on public free infrastructure (Github, Github Actions, Zenodo) in combination with established open-source tools. NCBench is agnostic of the used dataset and can evaluate an arbitrary number of given callsets, while reporting the results in a visual and interactive way. We used NCBench to evaluate over 40 callsets generated by various variant calling pipelines available in the participating groups that were run on three exome datasets from different enrichment kits and at different coverages. While all pipelines achieve high overall quality, subtle systematic differences between callers and datasets exist and are made apparent by NCBench.These insights are useful to improve existing pipelines and develop new workflows. NCBench is meant to be open for the contribution of any given callset. Most importantly, for authors, it will enable the omission of repeated re-implementation of paper-specific variant calling benchmarks for the publication of new tools or pipelines, while readers will benefit from being able to (continuously) observe the performance of tools and pipelines at the time of reading instead of at the time of writing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.212
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207