Simulated data from: Reference-free assembly of long-read transcriptome sequencing data with RNA-Bloom2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-read sequencing technologies have improved significantly since their emergence. Their read lengths, potentially spanning entire transcripts, is advantageous for reconstructing transcriptomes. Existing long-read transcriptome assembly methods are primarily reference-based and to date, there is little focus on reference-free transcriptome assembly. We introduce RNA-Bloom2, a reference-free assembly method for long-read transcriptome sequencing data. RNA-Bloom2 is available on GitHub at: https://github.com/bcgsc/RNA-Bloom. We benchmarked the assembly quality and the computational performance of RNA-Bloom2 on simulated data. We prepared two mouse simulated datasets with Trans-NanoSim for the cDNA and dRNA sequencing protocols model on experimental ONT data. The datasets were simulated based on the mouse ENSEMBL annotation for GRCm39. To investigate the effect of sequencing depth, we subsampled each dataset to 2, 10, and 18 million reads, resulting in a total of six sets of reads for our benchmarking experiments. Using the simulated data, we showed that the transcriptome assembly quality of RNA-Bloom2 is competitive to those of reference-based methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".