ArticleGenome medicine2016
Assessing the reproducibility of exome copy number variations predictions.
Article in Genome medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Novel Technique for Validating Copy Number Variants and Its Application in Familial Exudative Vitreoretinopathy.Human mutation · 2026Article
- Evaluative Methodology for HRD Testing: Development of Standard Tools for Consistency Assessment.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Utility of Trio-Exome Sequencing for Children With Neurodevelopmental Disorders.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Biallelic structural variants in three patients with ERCC8-related Cockayne syndrome and a potential pitfall of copy number variation analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Technological and computational approaches to detect somatic mosaicism in epilepsy.Neurobiology of disease · 2023Review
- InEJIFCC · 2023Article
- Clinical exome sequencing-Mistakes and caveats.Human mutation · 2022Review
- Algorithmic improvements for discovery of germline copy number variants in next-generation sequencing data.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Comprehensive analysis of recessive carrier status using exome and genome sequencing data in 1543 Southern Chinese.NPJ genomic medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Immune pathways and TP53 missense mutations are associated with longer survival in canine osteosarcoma.Communications biology · 2021Article
- Incorporating Machine Learning into Established Bioinformatics Frameworks.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Article
- Clinical exome sequencing as the first-tier test for diagnosing developmental disorders covering both CNV and SNV: a Chinese cohort.Journal of medical genetics · 2020Article
- A highly sensitive and specific workflow for detecting rare copy-number variants from exome sequencing data.Genome medicine · 2020Article
- inCNV: An Integrated Analysis Tool for Copy Number Variation on Whole Exome Sequencing.Evolutionary bioinformatics online · 2020Review
- Response to Gorokhova et al.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- A machine-learning approach for accurate detection of copy number variants from exome sequencing.Genome research · 2019Article
- Copy number variant and runs of homozygosity detection by microarrays enabled more precise molecular diagnoses in 11,020 clinical exome cases.Genome medicine · 2019Article
- Ximmer: a system for improving accuracy and consistency of CNV calling from exome data.GigaScience · 2018Article
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
Abstract
backgroundReproducibility is receiving increased attention across many domains of science and genomics is no exception. Efforts to identify copy number variations (CNVs) from exome sequence (ES) data have been increasing. Many algorithms have been published to discover CNVs from exomes and a major challenge is the reproducibility in other datasets. Here we test exome CNV calling reproducibility under three conditions: data generated by different sequencing centers; varying sample sizes; and varying capture methodology.
methodsFour CNV tools were tested: eXome Hidden Markov Model (XHMM), Copy Number Inference From Exome Reads (CoNIFER), EXCAVATOR, and Copy Number Analysis for Targeted Resequencing (CONTRA). To examine the reproducibility, we ran the callers on four datasets, varying sample sizes of N = 10, 30, 75, 100, 300, and data with different capture methodology. We examined the false negative (FN) calls and false positive (FP) calls for potential limitations of the CNV callers. The positive predictive value (PPV) was measured by checking the CNV call concordance against single nucleotide polymorphism array.
resultsUsing independently generated datasets, we examined the PPV for each dataset and observed wide range of PPVs. The PPV values were highly data dependent (p <0.001). For the sample sizes and capture method analyses, we tested the callers in triplicates. Both analyses resulted in wide ranges of PPVs, even for the same test. Interestingly, negative correlations between the PPV and the sample sizes were observed for CoNIFER (ρ = -0.80). Further examination of FN calls showed that 44 % of these were missed by all callers and were attributed to the CNV size (46 % spanned ≤3 exons). Overlap of the FP calls showed that FPs were unique to each caller, indicative of algorithm dependency.
conclusionsOur results demonstrate that further improvements in CNV callers are necessary to improve reproducibility and to include wider spectrum of CNVs (including the small CNVs). These CNV callers should be evaluated on multiple independent, heterogeneously generated datasets of varying size to increase robustness and utility. These approaches to the evaluation of exome CNV are essential to support wide utility and applicability of CNV discovery in exome studies.
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.