ReviewBioData mining2016
Visual programming for next-generation sequencing data analytics.
Review in BioData mining, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A simple guide to de novo transcriptome assembly and annotation.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Review
- Mind the gap: resources required to receive, process and interpret research-returned whole genome data.Human genetics · 2019Review
- Managing genomic variant calling workflows with Swift/T.PloS one · 2019Article
- Discovering feature relevancy and dependency by kernel-guided probabilistic model-building evolution.BioData mining · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-throughput or next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have become an established and affordable experimental framework in biological and medical sciences for all basic and translational research. Processing and analyzing NGS data is challenging. NGS data are big, heterogeneous, sparse, and error prone. Although a plethora of tools for NGS data analysis has emerged in the past decade, (i) software development is still lagging behind data generation capabilities, and (ii) there is a 'cultural' gap between the end user and the developer. TEXT: Generic software template libraries specifically developed for NGS can help in dealing with the former problem, whilst coupling template libraries with visual programming may help with the latter. Here we scrutinize the state-of-the-art low-level software libraries implemented specifically for NGS and graphical tools for NGS analytics. An ideal developing environment for NGS should be modular (with a native library interface), scalable in computational methods (i.e. serial, multithread, distributed), transparent (platform-independent), interoperable (with external software interface), and usable (via an intuitive graphical user interface). These characteristics should facilitate both the run of standardized NGS pipelines and the development of new workflows based on technological advancements or users' needs. We discuss in detail the potential of a computational framework blending generic template programming and visual programming that addresses all of the current limitations.
conclusionIn the long term, a proper, well-developed (although not necessarily unique) software framework will bridge the current gap between data generation and hypothesis testing. This will eventually facilitate the development of novel diagnostic tools embedded in routine healthcare.
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.