Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31481971›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2019

Sentieon DNASeq Variant Calling Workflow Demonstrates Strong Computational Performance and Accuracy.

Katherine I Kendig, Saurabh Baheti, Matthew A Bockol, Travis M Drucker, Steven N Hart, Jacob R Heldenbrand, Mikel Hernaez, Matthew E Hudson, Michael T Kalmbach, Eric W Klee and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 168 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
168citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

168 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

108 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors.

Katherine I KendigNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Saurabh BahetiDepartment of Research Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Matthew A BockolDepartment of Executive IT Administration, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Travis M DruckerDepartment of Executive IT Administration, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Steven N HartDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Jacob R HeldenbrandNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Mikel HernaezCarl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Matthew E HudsonCarl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Michael T KalmbachDepartment of Executive IT Administration, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Eric W KleeDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Nathan R MattsonDepartment of Executive IT Administration, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Christian A RossDepartment of Executive IT Administration, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Morgan TaschukGenome Sequence Informatics, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto ON, Canada.
Eric D WiebenDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Mathieu WiepertDepartment of Executive IT Administration, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Derek E WildmanCarl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Liudmila S MainzerNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As reliable, efficient genome sequencing becomes ubiquitous, the need for similarly reliable and efficient variant calling becomes increasingly important. The Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK), maintained by the Broad Institute, is currently the widely accepted standard for variant calling software. However, alternative solutions may provide faster variant calling without sacrificing accuracy. One such alternative is Sentieon DNASeq, a toolkit analogous to GATK but built on a highly optimized backend. We conducted an independent evaluation of the DNASeq single-sample variant calling pipeline in comparison to that of GATK. Our results support the near-identical accuracy of the two software packages, showcase optimal scalability and great speed from Sentieon, and describe computational performance considerations for the deployment of DNASeq.

Indexed as

benchmarkingDNASeqGATKSentieonvariant calling

Identifiers

PMID31481971
PMCPMC6710408

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.