A comparative study of structural variant calling in WGS from Alzheimer’s disease families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting structural variants (SVs) in whole-genome sequencing poses significant challenges. We present a protocol for variant calling, merging, genotyping, sensitivity analysis, and laboratory validation for generating a high-quality SV call set in whole-genome sequencing from the Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project comprising 578 individuals from 111 families. Employing two complementary pipelines, Scalpel and Parliament, for SV/indel calling, we assessed sensitivity through sample replicates (N = 9) with in silico variant spike-ins. We developed a novel metric, D-score, to evaluate caller specificity for deletions. The accuracy of deletions was evaluated by Sanger sequencing. We generated a high-quality call set of 152,301 deletions of diverse sizes. Sanger sequencing validated 114 of 146 detected deletions (78.1%). Scalpel excelled in accuracy for deletions ≤100 bp, whereas Parliament was optimal for deletions >900 bp. Overall, 83.0% and 72.5% of calls by Scalpel and Parliament were validated, respectively, including all 11 deletions called by both Parliament and Scalpel between 101 and 900 bp. Our flexible protocol successfully generated a high-quality deletion call set and a truth set of Sanger sequencing-validated deletions with precise breakpoints spanning 1-17,000 bp.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".