ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018
Representativeness of variation benchmark datasets.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complementary Roles of Structure and Variant Effect Predictors in RyR1 Clinical Interpretation.Human mutation · 2025Article
- PON-Fold: Prediction of Substitutions Affecting Protein Folding Rate.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- VariBench, new variation benchmark categories and data sets.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Plant Genotype to Phenotype Prediction Using Machine Learning.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- PON-All: Amino Acid Substitution Tolerance Predictor for All Organisms.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
- Resources for image-based high-throughput phenotyping in crops and data sharing challenges.Plant physiology · 2021Article
- RefPlantNLR is a comprehensive collection of experimentally validated plant disease resistance proteins from the NLR family.PLoS biology · 2021Article
- Mapping OMIM Disease-Related Variations on Protein Domains Reveals an Association Among Variation Type, Pfam Models, and Disease Classes.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Article
- Problems in variation interpretation guidelines and in their implementation in computational tools.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Using deep mutational scanning to benchmark variant effect predictors and identify disease mutations.Molecular systems biology · 2020Article
- Variation benchmark datasets: update, criteria, quality and applications.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- Functional and Structural Features of Disease-Related Protein Variants.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBenchmark datasets are essential for both method development and performance assessment. These datasets have numerous requirements, representativeness being one. In the case of variant tolerance/pathogenicity prediction, representativeness means that the dataset covers the space of variations and their effects.
resultsWe performed the first analysis of the representativeness of variation benchmark datasets. We used statistical approaches to investigate how proteins in the benchmark datasets were representative for the entire human protein universe. We investigated the distributions of variants in chromosomes, protein structures, CATH domains and classes, Pfam protein families, Enzyme Commission (EC) classifications and Gene Ontology annotations in 24 datasets that have been used for training and testing variant tolerance prediction methods. All the datasets were available in VariBench or VariSNP databases. We tested also whether the pathogenic variant datasets contained neutral variants defined as those that have high minor allele frequency in the ExAC database. The distributions of variants over the chromosomes and proteins varied greatly between the datasets.
conclusionsNone of the datasets was found to be well representative. Many of the tested datasets had quite good coverage of the different protein characteristics. Dataset size correlates to representativeness but only weakly to the performance of methods trained on them. The results imply that dataset representativeness is an important factor and should be taken into account in predictor development and testing.
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.