A cost-effective sequencing method for genetic studies combining high-depth whole exome and low-depth whole genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) at high-depth (30X) allows the accurate discovery of variants in the coding and non-coding DNA regions and helps elucidate the genetic underpinnings of human health and diseases. Yet, due to the prohibitive cost of high-depth WGS, most large-scale genetic association studies use genotyping arrays or high-depth whole exome sequencing (WES). Here we propose a cost-effective method which we call "Whole Exome Genome Sequencing" (WEGS), that combines low-depth WGS and high-depth WES with up to 8 samples pooled and sequenced simultaneously (multiplexed). We experimentally assess the performance of WEGS with four different depth of coverage and sample multiplexing configurations. We show that the optimal WEGS configurations are 1.7-2.0 times cheaper than standard WES (no-plexing), 1.8-2.1 times cheaper than high-depth WGS, reach similar recall and precision rates in detecting coding variants as WES, and capture more population-specific variants in the rest of the genome that are difficult to recover when using genotype imputation methods. We apply WEGS to 862 patients with peripheral artery disease and show that it directly assesses more known disease-associated variants than a typical genotyping array and thousands of non-imputable variants per disease-associated locus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".