Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32219145›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2020

Exploring the Consistency of the Quality Scores with Machine Learning for Next-Generation Sequencing Experiments.

Erdal Cosgun, Min Oh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Computational Tools for the Analysis of Uncultivated Phage Genomes.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

2 authors.

Erdal CosgunMicrosoft Genomics Team, Redmond, WA, USA 98052.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1068-6523
Min OhVirginia Tech University, Dep. of Computer Science, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningAlgorithmsBase SequenceComputational BiologyGenome, HumanHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLinear ModelsReproducibility of ResultsSoftware

Identifiers

PMID32219145
PMCPMC7061114

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.