Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29158876›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2017

Challenges in the Setup of Large-scale Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis Workflows.

Pranav Kulkarni, Peter Frommolt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. A Review of Circulating Tumor DNA in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Esophageal Cancer.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Pranav KulkarniBioinformatics Core Facility, CECAD Research Center, University of Cologne, Germany.
Peter FrommoltBioinformatics Core Facility, CECAD Research Center, University of Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) can now be considered an established analysis technology for research applications across the life sciences, the analysis workflows still require substantial bioinformatics expertise. Typical challenges include the appropriate selection of analytical software tools, the speedup of the overall procedure using HPC parallelization and acceleration technology, the development of automation strategies, data storage solutions and finally the development of methods for full exploitation of the analysis results across multiple experimental conditions. Recently, NGS has begun to expand into clinical environments, where it facilitates diagnostics enabling personalized therapeutic approaches, but is also accompanied by new technological, legal and ethical challenges. There are probably as many overall concepts for the analysis of the data as there are academic research institutions. Among these concepts are, for instance, complex IT architectures developed in-house, ready-to-use technologies installed on-site as well as comprehensive Everything as a Service (XaaS) solutions. In this mini-review, we summarize the key points to consider in the setup of the analysis architectures, mostly for scientific rather than diagnostic purposes, and provide an overview of the current state of the art and challenges of the field.

Identifiers

PMID29158876
PMCPMC5683667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.