ArticleBioMed research international2020
Exploring the Consistency of the Quality Scores with Machine Learning for Next-Generation Sequencing Experiments.
Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodological approaches in 16S sequencing of female reproductive tract in fertility patients: a review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence and database for NGS-based diagnosis in rare disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Computational Tools for the Analysis of Uncultivated Phage Genomes.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2022Review
- Characterization of hotspot exonuclease domain mutations in the DNA polymerase ϵ gene in endometrial cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Uncovering potential single nucleotide polymorphisms, copy number variations and related signaling pathways in primary Sjogren's syndrome.Bioengineered · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNext-generation sequencing enables massively parallel processing, allowing lower cost than the other sequencing technologies. In the subsequent analysis with the NGS data, one of the major concerns is the reliability of variant calls. Although researchers can utilize raw quality scores of variant calling, they are forced to start the further analysis without any preevaluation of the quality scores.
methodWe presented a machine learning approach for estimating quality scores of variant calls derived from BWA+GATK. We analyzed correlations between the quality score and these annotations, specifying informative annotations which were used as features to predict variant quality scores. To test the predictive models, we simulated 24 paired-end Illumina sequencing reads with 30x coverage base. Also, twenty-four human genome sequencing reads resulting from Illumina paired-end sequencing with at least 30x coverage were secured from the Sequence Read Archive.
resultsUsing BWA+GATK, VCFs were derived from simulated and real sequencing reads. We observed that the prediction models learned by RFR outperformed other algorithms in both simulated and real data. The quality scores of variant calls were highly predictable from informative features of GATK Annotation Modules in the simulated human genome VCF data (R2: 96.7%, 94.4%, and 89.8% for RFR, MLR, and NNR, respectively). The robustness of the proposed data-driven models was consistently maintained in the real human genome VCF data (R2: 97.8% and 96.5% for RFR and MLR, respectively).
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.