ArticleMolecular carcinogenesis2023
Integrated variant allele frequency analysis pipeline and R package: easyVAF.
Article in Molecular carcinogenesis, 2023. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Somatic sequence variants are associated with cancer diagnosis, prognostic stratification, and treatment response. Variant allele frequency (VAF), the percentage of sequence reads with a specific DNA variant over the read depth at that locus, has been used as a metric to quantify mutation rates in these applications. VAF has the potential for feature detection by reflecting changes in tumor clonal composition across treatments or time points. Although there are several packages, including Genome Analysis Toolkit and VarScan, designed for variant calling and rare mutation identification, there is no readily available package for comparing VAFs among and between groups to identify loci of interest. To this end, we have developed the R package easyVAF, which includes parametric and nonparametric tests to compare VAFs among multiple groups. It is accompanied by an interactive R Shiny app. With easyVAF, the investigator has the option between three statistical tests to maximize power while maintaining an acceptable type I error rate. This paper presents our proposed pipeline for VAF analysis, from quality checking to group comparison. We evaluate our method in a wide range of simulated scenarios and show that choosing the appropriate test to limit the type I error rate is critical. For situations where data is sparse, we recommend comparing VAFs with the beta-binomial likelihood ratio test over Fisher's exact test and Pearson's χ
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.