Hacker News Reader

We used Guppy for basecalling, which is neural network based and used to turn raw signal data into the predicted bases. There're no guarantees of accuracy, only tools to determine and assess quality. One major way of assessing accuracy is to compare the subject genome with other similar reference genomes and denote the high-degree of homology in highly-conserved regions.

View on HN

My question is if in the future, we would be able to fully rely on translations to predicted bases for sequencing or if there would always be a need to compare with a different sequencing methodology in the case of de novo genetic information that previously hasn't been seen before (no reference genomes being available in that case).

Is there publicly available information on how accurate Guppy is, as well as how the amount of training data scales with improvements in accuracy?

It didn't seem like these things were mentioned explicitly in the Community Update, other than that it’s expected to continue improving, but a clearer roadmap would definitely be much more helpful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com