A BLAST from the past: revisiting blastp’s E-value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Basic Local Alignment Search Tool, BLAST, is an indispensable tool for genomic research. BLAST established itself as the canonical tool for sequence similarity search in large part thanks to its meaningful statistical analysis. Specifically, BLAST reports the E-value of each reported alignment, which is defined as the expected number of optimal local alignments that will score at least as high as the observed alignment score, assuming that the query and the database sequences are randomly generated. Here we critically evaluate the E-values provided by the standard protein BLAST (blastp), showing that they can be at times significantly conservative while at others too liberal. We offer an alternative approach based on generating a small sample from the null distribution of random optimal alignments, and testing whether the observed alignment score is consistent with it. In contrast with blastp, our significance analysis seems valid, in the sense that it did not deliver inflated significance estimates in any of our extensive experiments. Moreover, although our method is slightly conservative, it is often significantly less so than the blastp E-value. Indeed, in cases where blastp’s analysis is valid (i.e., not too liberal), our approach seems to deliver a greater number of correct alignments. One advantage of our approach is that it works with any reasonable choice of substitution matrix and gap penalties, avoiding blastp’s limited options of matrices and penalties. In addition, we can formulate the problem using a canonical family-wise error rate control setup, thereby dispensing with E-values, which can at times be difficult to interpret.
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 | 0.034 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".