MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409795125 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-394

Research on Structural Variation Detection Methods of Wheat Genome Based on Deep Learning

2025· article· en· W4409795125 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Structural variationGenomeArtificial intelligenceComputational biologyBiologyComputer scienceEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGenePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the complexity of genome structure and technical conditions, wheat genome structure variation has not yet been comprehensively and accurately detected and evaluated for genetic effects.The aim of this study is to construct a method based on deep learning algorithm to accurately detect genomic structure variation in wheat.The method converts genomic data into image form by genomic structure variation image generation algorithm.A gene structure variation prediction model is constructed based on deep learning, and efficient and accurate structure variation prediction is realized by automatically extracting and analyzing the variation features in the image.The experimental results show that this method has better detection performance than other structural variation detection methods based on third-generation sequencing data, especially in the structural variation detection of the "Sequencing and Assembly of Spring Wheat Genome in China" project, and the accuracy, precision, and recall rate of this method are all over 90%.This study provides a novel deep learning framework for efficiently detecting structural variants in the wheat genome, and provides powerful technical support for genetic improvement and breeding research of wheat.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.331 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207