Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27074764›Full record

ArticleJournal of human genetics2016

Evaluation of the evenness score in next-generation sequencing.

Konrad Oexle

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

1 author.

Konrad OexleCenter for Cardiovascular Genetics and Gene Diagnostics, Foundation for People with Rare Diseases, Schlieren-Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evenness score (E) in next-generation sequencing (NGS) quantifies the homogeneity in coverage of the NGS targets. Here I clarify the mathematical description of E, which is 1 minus the integral from 0 to 1 over the cumulative distribution function F(x) of the normalized coverage x, where normalization means division by the mean, and derive a computationally more efficient formula; that is, 1 minus the integral from 0 to 1 over the probability density distribution f(x) times 1-x. An analogous formula for empirical coverage data is provided as well as fast R command line scripts. This new formula allows for a general comparison of E with the coefficient of variation (=standard deviation σ of normalized data) which is the conventional measure of the relative width of a distribution. For symmetrical distributions, including the Gaussian, E can be predicted closely as 1-σ(2)/2⩾E⩾1-σ/2 with σ⩽1 owing to normalization and symmetry. In case of the log-normal distribution as a typical representative of positively skewed biological data, the analysis yields E≈exp(-σ*/2) with σ*(2)=ln(σ(2)+1) up to large σ (⩽3), and E≈1-F(exp(-1)) for very large σ (⩾2.5). In the latter kind of rather uneven coverage, E can provide direct information on the fraction of well-covered targets that is not immediately delivered by the normalized σ. Otherwise, E does not appear to have major advantages over σ or over a simple score exp(-σ) based on it. Actually, exp(-σ) exploits a much larger part of its range for the evaluation of realistic NGS outputs.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAlgorithmsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansModels, Statistical

Identifiers

PMID27074764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.