ArticleFrontiers in genetics2023
Performance comparisons between clustering models for reconstructing NGS results from technical replicates.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model for the Prediction of Bloodstream Infections in Patients with Hematological Malignancies and Febrile Neutropenia.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Protocol for the development of a tool to map systemic sclerosis pain sources, patterns, and management experiences: a Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network patient-researcher partnership.BMC rheumatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To improve the performance of individual DNA sequencing results, researchers often use replicates from the same individual and various statistical clustering models to reconstruct a high-performance callset. Here, three technical replicates of genome NA12878 were considered and five model types were compared (consensus, latent class, Gaussian mixture, Kamila-adapted k-means, and random forest) regarding four performance indicators: sensitivity, precision, accuracy, and F1-score. In comparison with no use of a combination model, i) the consensus model improved precision by 0.1%; ii) the latent class model brought 1% precision improvement (97%-98%) without compromising sensitivity (= 98.9%); iii) the Gaussian mixture model and random forest provided callsets with higher precisions (both >99%) but lower sensitivities; iv) Kamila increased precision (>99%) and kept a high sensitivity (98.8%); it showed the best overall performance. According to precision and F1-score indicators, the compared non-supervised clustering models that combine multiple callsets are able to improve sequencing performance vs. previously used supervised models. Among the models compared, the Gaussian mixture model and Kamila offered non-negligible precision and F1-score improvements. These models may be thus recommended for callset reconstruction (from either biological or technical replicates) for diagnostic or precision medicine purposes.
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.