ArticlePloS one2019
Managing genomic variant calling workflows with Swift/T.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design considerations for workflow management systems use in production genomics research and the clinic.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Orchestrating and sharing large multimodal data for transparent and reproducible research.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Bioinformatics in Sudan: Status and challenges case study: The National University-Sudan.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Data analysis and modeling pipelines for controlled networked social science experiments.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bioinformatics research is frequently performed using complex workflows with multiple steps, fans, merges, and conditionals. This complexity makes management of the workflow difficult on a computer cluster, especially when running in parallel on large batches of data: hundreds or thousands of samples at a time. Scientific workflow management systems could help with that. Many are now being proposed, but is there yet the "best" workflow management system for bioinformatics? Such a system would need to satisfy numerous, sometimes conflicting requirements: from ease of use, to seamless deployment at peta- and exa-scale, and portability to the cloud. We evaluated Swift/T as a candidate for such role by implementing a primary genomic variant calling workflow in the Swift/T language, focusing on workflow management, performance and scalability issues that arise from production-grade big data genomic analyses. In the process we introduced novel features into the language, which are now part of its open repository. Additionally, we formalized a set of design criteria for quality, robust, maintainable workflows that must function at-scale in a production setting, such as a large genomic sequencing facility or a major hospital system. The use of Swift/T conveys two key advantages. (1) It operates transparently in multiple cluster scheduling environments (PBS Torque, SLURM, Cray aprun environment, etc.), thus a single workflow is trivially portable across numerous clusters. (2) The leaf functions of Swift/T permit developers to easily swap executables in and out of the workflow, which makes it easy to maintain and to request resources optimal for each stage of the pipeline. While Swift/T's data-level parallelism eliminates the need to code parallel analysis of multiple samples, it does make debugging more difficult, as is common for implicitly parallel code. Nonetheless, the language gives users a powerful and portable way to scale up analyses in many computing architectures. The code for our implementation of a variant calling workflow using Swift/T can be found on GitHub at https://github.com/ncsa/Swift-T-Variant-Calling, with full documentation provided at http://swift-t-variant-calling.readthedocs.io/en/latest/.
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.