Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32996082›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied genetics2020

The application of deep learning for the classification of correct and incorrect SNP genotypes from whole-genome DNA sequencing pipelines.

Krzysztof Kotlarz, Magda Mielczarek, Tomasz Suchocki, Bartosz Czech, Bernt Guldbrandtsen, Joanna Szyda

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Harnessing deep learning for SNP-based disease prediction in genomics.International journal of information technology : an official journal of Bharati Vidyapeeth's Institute of Computer Applications and Management · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Krzysztof KotlarzBiostatistics Group, Department of Genetics, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Kozuchowska 7, 51-631, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2271-025X
Magda MielczarekBiostatistics Group, Department of Genetics, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Kozuchowska 7, 51-631, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1086-9119
Tomasz SuchockiBiostatistics Group, Department of Genetics, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Kozuchowska 7, 51-631, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8530-3486
Bartosz CzechBiostatistics Group, Department of Genetics, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Kozuchowska 7, 51-631, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9908-3007
Bernt GuldbrandtsenAnimal Breeding Group, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1764-135X
Joanna SzydaBiostatistics Group, Department of Genetics, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Kozuchowska 7, 51-631, Wroclaw, Poland. joanna.szyda@upwr.edu.pl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9688-0193

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A downside of next-generation sequencing technology is the high technical error rate. We built a tool, which uses array-based genotype information to classify next-generation sequencing-based SNPs into the correct and the incorrect calls. The deep learning algorithms were implemented via Keras. Several algorithms were tested: (i) the basic, naïve algorithm, (ii) the naïve algorithm modified by pre-imposing different weights on incorrect and correct SNP class in calculating the loss metric and (iii)-(v) the naïve algorithm modified by random re-sampling (with replacement) of the incorrect SNPs to match 30%/60%/100% of the number of correct SNPs. The training data set was composed of data from three bulls and consisted of 2,227,995 correct (97.94%) and 46,920 incorrect SNPs, while the validation data set consisted of data from one bull with 749,506 correct (98.05%) and 14,908 incorrect SNPs. The results showed that for a rare event classification problem, like incorrect SNP detection in NGS data, the most parsimonious naïve model and a model with the weighting of SNP classes provided the best results for the classification of the validation data set. Both classified 19% of truly incorrect SNPs as incorrect and 99% of truly correct SNPs as correct and resulted in the F1 score of 0.21 - the highest among the compared algorithms. We conclude the basic models were less adapted to the specificity of a training data set and thus resulted in better classification of the independent, validation data set, than the other tested models.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAlgorithmsAnimalsCattleGenotyping TechniquesPolymorphism, Single NucleotideWhole Genome SequencingClassificationKerasNext-generation sequencingPythonSNP callingSNP microarrayTensorFlow

Identifiers

PMID32996082
PMCPMC7652806

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.