ArticleHuman genetics2024
STRAS:a snakemake pipeline for genome-wide short tandem repeats annotation and score.
Article in Human genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Computational tools for tandem repeat detection using long-read sequencing.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-throughput whole genome sequencing (WGS) is clinically used in finding single nucleotide variants and small indels. Several bioinformatics tools are developed to call short tandem repeats (STRs) copy numbers from WGS data, such as ExpansionHunter denovo, GangSTR and HipSTR. However, expansion disorders are rare and it is hard to find candidate expansions in single patient sequencing data with ~ 800,000 STRs calls. In this paper I describe a snakemake pipeline for genome-wide STRs Annotation and Score (STRAS) using a Random Forest (RF) model to predict pathogenicity. The predictor was validated by benchmark data from Clinvar and PUBMED. True positive rate was 93.8%. True negative rate was 98.0%.Precision was 98.6% and recall rate was 93.8%. F1-score was 0.961. Sensitivity was 93.8% and specificity was 99.6%. These results showed STRAS could be a useful tool for clinical researchers to find STR loci of interest and filter out neutral STRs. STRAS is freely available at https://github.com/fancheyu5/STRAS .
Indexed as
Identifiers
38507015What 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.