ArticleJournal of theoretical biology2016
Comparison of genomic data via statistical distribution.
Article in Journal of theoretical biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sequence comparison has become an essential tool in bioinformatics, because highly homologous sequences usually imply significant functional or structural similarity. Traditional sequence analysis techniques are based on preprocessing and alignment, which facilitate measuring and quantitative characterization of genetic differences, variability and complexity. However, recent developments of next generation and whole genome sequencing technologies give rise to new challenges that are related to measuring similarity and capturing rearrangements of large segments contained in the genome. This work is devoted to illustrating different methods recently introduced for quantifying sequence distances and variability. Most of the alignment-free methods rely on counting words, which are small contiguous fragments of the genome. Our approach considers the locations of nucleotides in the sequences and relies more on appropriate statistical distributions. The results of this technique for comparing sequences, by extracting information and comparing matching fidelity and location regularization information, are very encouraging, specifically to classify mutation sequences.
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.