ArticlePloS one2021
NGS read classification using AI.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Change of Heart: Can Artificial Intelligence Transform Infective Endocarditis Management?Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A review of neural networks for metagenomic binning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Correction: NGS read classification using AI.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical metagenomics is a powerful diagnostic tool, as it offers an open view into all DNA in a patient's sample. This allows the detection of pathogens that would slip through the cracks of classical specific assays. However, due to this unspecific nature of metagenomic sequencing, a huge amount of unspecific data is generated during the sequencing itself and the diagnosis only takes place at the data analysis stage where relevant sequences are filtered out. Typically, this is done by comparison to reference databases. While this approach has been optimized over the past years and works well to detect pathogens that are represented in the used databases, a common challenge in analysing a metagenomic patient sample arises when no pathogen sequences are found: How to determine whether truly no evidence of a pathogen is present in the data or whether the pathogen's genome is simply absent from the database and the sequences in the dataset could thus not be classified? Here, we present a novel approach to this problem of detecting novel pathogens in metagenomic datasets by classifying the (segments of) proteins encoded by the sequences in the datasets. We train a neural network on the sequences of coding sequences, labeled by taxonomic domain, and use this neural network to predict the taxonomic classification of sequences that can not be classified by comparison to a reference database, thus facilitating the detection of potential novel pathogens.
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.