Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29967328›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

HECIL: A Hybrid Error Correction Algorithm for Long Reads with Iterative Learning.

Olivia Choudhury, Ankush Chakrabarty, Scott J Emrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Olivia ChoudhuryPostdoctoral Researcher, IBM Research, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA. olivia.choudhury1@ibm.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5009-4397
Ankush ChakrabartyVisiting Research Scientist, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9637-854X
Scott J EmrichAssociate Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA.

Funding

Unified Culex assemblies for improved population-level analysisR21AI123967 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME · PI EMRICH, SCOTT · 2016 to 2017
$396k
NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI123967U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (NIH) R21AI123967
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Second-generation DNA sequencing techniques generate short reads that can result in fragmented genome assemblies. Third-generation sequencing platforms mitigate this limitation by producing longer reads that span across complex and repetitive regions. However, the usefulness of such long reads is limited because of high sequencing error rates. To exploit the full potential of these longer reads, it is imperative to correct the underlying errors. We propose HECIL-Hybrid Error Correction with Iterative Learning-a hybrid error correction framework that determines a correction policy for erroneous long reads, based on optimal combinations of decision weights obtained from short read alignments. We demonstrate that HECIL outperforms state-of-the-art error correction algorithms for an overwhelming majority of evaluation metrics on diverse, real-world data sets including E. coli, S. cerevisiae, and the malaria vector mosquito A. funestus. Additionally, we provide an optional avenue of improving the performance of HECIL's core algorithm by introducing an iterative learning paradigm that enhances the correction policy at each iteration by incorporating knowledge gathered from previous iterations via data-driven confidence metrics assigned to prior corrections.

Indexed as

Machine LearningEscherichia coliHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMosquito VectorsRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic AcidSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID29967328
PMCPMC6028576

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.