ArticleGenes2021
Graph Algorithms for Mixture Interpretation.
Article in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The scale of genetic methods are presently being expanded: forensic genetic assays previously were limited to tens of loci, but now technologies allow for a transition to forensic genomic approaches that assess thousands to millions of loci. However, there are subtle distinctions between genetic assays and their genomic counterparts (especially in the context of forensics). For instance, forensic genetic approaches tend to describe a locus as a haplotype, be it a microhaplotype or a short tandem repeat with its accompanying flanking information. In contrast, genomic assays tend to provide not haplotypes but sequence variants or differences, variants which in turn describe how the alleles apparently differ from the reference sequence. By the given construction, mitochondrial genetic assays can be thought of as genomic as they often describe genetic differences in a similar way. The mitochondrial genetics literature makes clear that sequence differences, unlike the haplotypes they encode, are not comparable to each other. Different alignment algorithms and different variant calling conventions may cause the same haplotype to be encoded in multiple ways. This ambiguity can affect evidence and reference profile comparisons as well as how "match" statistics are computed. In this study, a graph algorithm is described (and implemented in the MMDIT (Mitochondrial Mixture Database and Interpretation Tool) R package) that permits the assessment of forensic match statistics on mitochondrial DNA mixtures in a way that is invariant to both the variant calling conventions followed and the alignment parameters considered. The algorithm described, given a few modest constraints, can be used to compute the "random man not excluded" statistic or the likelihood ratio. The performance of the approach is assessed in in silico mitochondrial DNA mixtures.
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.