LCR-modules: a collection of workflows for cancer genome analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The surge of genomic data from advanced sequencing technologies is outpacing current analytical pipelines. We introduce LCR-modules, an open-source suite of bioinformatics tools designed for flexible and automated cancer genome data analysis. LCR-modules enables reproducible analysis of diverse cancer genomics data at scale. The suite comprises 49 Snakemake-based workflows organized into three levels, facilitating tasks from low-level quality control to complex cohort-level analyses. LCR-modules supports various sequencing types and integrates pipelines such as mutation calling, expression quantification, and cohort-level aggregation, ensuring flexibility and reproducibility. LCR-modules represents a significant advancement in genomic data analysis, reducing barriers in reproducibility and scalability and has already been applied to a combination of exomes and genomes from over 10 800 samples. AVAILABILITY: No new data were generated in support of this research. The source code for the LCR-modules is openly available at https://github.com/LCR-BCCRC/lcr-modules.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.022 |
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".