ArticleBMC genomics2018
A machine learning model to determine the accuracy of variant calls in capture-based next generation sequencing.
Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Correlation between variant call accuracy and quality parameters in comprehensive cancer genomic profiling tests.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Improving the filtering of false positive single nucleotide variations by combining genomic features with quality metrics.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence and database for NGS-based diagnosis in rare disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Satellite DNAs and human sex chromosome variation.Seminars in cell & developmental biology · 2022Review
- Methods for Identifying Patients with Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase (TRK) Fusion Cancer.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2020Review
- Prevalence of Inherited Mutations in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes among Women in Uganda and Cameroon.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- A Rigorous Interlaboratory Examination of the Need to Confirm Next-Generation Sequencing-Detected Variants with an Orthogonal Method in Clinical Genetic Testing.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2019Article
- Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNext generation sequencing (NGS) has become a common technology for clinical genetic tests. The quality of NGS calls varies widely and is influenced by features like reference sequence characteristics, read depth, and mapping accuracy. With recent advances in NGS technology and software tools, the majority of variants called using NGS alone are in fact accurate and reliable. However, a small subset of difficult-to-call variants that still do require orthogonal confirmation exist. For this reason, many clinical laboratories confirm NGS results using orthogonal technologies such as Sanger sequencing. Here, we report the development of a deterministic machine-learning-based model to differentiate between these two types of variant calls: those that do not require confirmation using an orthogonal technology (high confidence), and those that require additional quality testing (low confidence). This approach allows reliable NGS-based calling in a clinical setting by identifying the few important variant calls that require orthogonal confirmation.
resultsWe developed and tested the model using a set of 7179 variants identified by a targeted NGS panel and re-tested by Sanger sequencing. The model incorporated several signals of sequence characteristics and call quality to determine if a variant was identified at high or low confidence. The model was tuned to eliminate false positives, defined as variants that were called by NGS but not confirmed by Sanger sequencing. The model achieved very high accuracy: 99.4% (95% confidence interval: +/- 0.03%). It categorized 92.2% (6622/7179) of the variants as high confidence, and 100% of these were confirmed to be present by Sanger sequencing. Among the variants that were categorized as low confidence, defined as NGS calls of low quality that are likely to be artifacts, 92.1% (513/557) were found to be not present by Sanger sequencing.
conclusionsThis work shows that NGS data contains sufficient characteristics for a machine-learning-based model to differentiate low from high confidence variants. Additionally, it reveals the importance of incorporating site-specific features as well as variant call features in such a model.
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.