ArticleHuman mutation2017
PON-P and PON-P2 predictor performance in CAGI challenges: Lessons learned.
Article in Human mutation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- CAGI, the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation, establishes progress and prospects for computational genetic variant interpretation methods.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Variation benchmark datasets: update, criteria, quality and applications.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- Reports from CAGI: The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation.Human mutation · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Computational tools are widely used for ranking and prioritizing variants for characterizing their disease relevance. Since numerous tools have been developed, they have to be properly assessed before being applied. Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) experiments have significantly contributed toward the assessment of prediction methods for various tasks. Within and outside the CAGI, we have addressed several questions that facilitate development and assessment of variation interpretation tools. These areas include collection and distribution of benchmark datasets, their use for systematic large-scale method assessment, and the development of guidelines for reporting methods and their performance. For us, CAGI has provided a chance to experiment with new ideas, test the application areas of our methods, and network with other prediction method developers. In this article, we discuss our experiences and lessons learned from the various CAGI challenges. We describe our approaches, their performance, and impact of CAGI on our research. Finally, we discuss some of the possibilities that CAGI experiments have opened up and make some suggestions for future experiments.
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.