Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25275518›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Trainable high resolution melt curve machine learning classifier for large-scale reliable genotyping of sequence variants.

Pornpat Athamanolap, Vishwa Parekh, Stephanie I Fraley, Vatsal Agarwal, Dong J Shin, Michael A Jacobs, Tza-Huei Wang, Samuel Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Emerging Analytical Techniques for Rapid Pathogen Identification and Susceptibility Testing.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Pornpat AthamanolapDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Vishwa ParekhDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Stephanie I FraleyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Vatsal AgarwalDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Dong J ShinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Michael A JacobsThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Tza-Huei WangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Samuel YangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

Multi-Modality Quantitiative Imaging for Evaluation of Response to Cancer TherapyU01CA140204 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DU, YONG, SOLNES, LILJA · 2011 to 2022
$6.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01CA15305NCI NIH HHS U01 CA140204NCI NIH HHS U01CA140204
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High resolution melt (HRM) is gaining considerable popularity as a simple and robust method for genotyping sequence variants. However, accurate genotyping of an unknown sample for which a large number of possible variants may exist will require an automated HRM curve identification method capable of comparing unknowns against a large cohort of known sequence variants. Herein, we describe a new method for automated HRM curve classification based on machine learning methods and learned tolerance for reaction condition deviations. We tested this method in silico through multiple cross-validations using curves generated from 9 different simulated experimental conditions to classify 92 known serotypes of Streptococcus pneumoniae and demonstrated over 99% accuracy with 8 training curves per serotype. In vitro verification of the algorithm was tested using sequence variants of a cancer-related gene and demonstrated 100% accuracy with 3 training curves per sequence variant. The machine learning algorithm enabled reliable, scalable, and automated HRM genotyping analysis with broad potential clinical and epidemiological applications.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceGenetic VariationBase SequenceComputer SimulationDNADNA PrimersGenotyping TechniquesHumansMagnesiumNucleic Acid DenaturationPotassiumReproducibility of ResultsSerotypingSodiumStreptococcus pneumoniaeDNADNA PrimersMagnesiumPotassiumRASSF1 protein, humanSodiumTumor Suppressor Proteins

Identifiers

PMID25275518
PMCPMC4183555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.