ArticlePloS one2015
Prioritizing Clinically Relevant Copy Number Variation from Genetic Interactions and Gene Function Data.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frequent convergence ofEmerging microbes & infections · 2022Article
- Phenotate: crowdsourcing phenotype annotations as exercises in undergraduate classes.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- First Report ofmSphere · 2019Article
- Decaffeinated Green Tea Extract Does Not Elicit Hepatotoxic Effects and Modulates the Gut Microbiome in Lean B6C3F₁ Mice.Nutrients · 2019Article
- Pathways to neurodegeneration: lessons learnt from unbiased genetic screens inJournal of genetics · 2018Review
- A Novel Prioritization Method in Identifying Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism-Related Genes.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly necessary to develop computerized methods for identifying the few disease-causing variants from hundreds discovered in each individual patient. This problem is especially relevant for Copy Number Variants (CNVs), which can be cheaply interrogated via low-cost hybridization arrays commonly used in clinical practice. We present a method to predict the disease relevance of CNVs that combines functional context and clinical phenotype to discover clinically harmful CNVs (and likely causative genes) in patients with a variety of phenotypes. We compare several feature and gene weighing systems for classifying both genes and CNVs. We combined the best performing methodologies and parameters on over 2,500 Agilent CGH 180k Microarray CNVs derived from 140 patients. Our method achieved an F-score of 91.59%, with 87.08% precision and 97.00% recall. Our methods are freely available at https://github.com/compbio-UofT/cnv-prioritization. Our dataset is included with the supplementary information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.