ArticleBioMed research international2019
Detection of False-Positive Deletions from the Database of Genomic Variants.
Article in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic Insights into Idiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis through Whole-Exome Sequencing: A Case Report of Eight Patients.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Next generation sequencing is an emerging technology that has been widely used in the detection of genomic variants. However, since its depth of coverage, a main signature used for variant calling, is affected greatly by biases such as GC content and mappability, some callings are false positives. In this study, we utilized paired-end read mapping, another signature that is not affected by the aforementioned biases, to detect false-positive deletions in the database of genomic variants. We first identified 1923 suspicious variants that may be false positives and then conducted validation studies on each suspicious variant, which detected 583 false-positive deletions. Finally we analysed the distribution of these false positives by chromosome, sample, and size. Hopefully, incorrect documentation and annotations in downstream studies can be avoided by correcting these false positives in public repositories.
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.