Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38877133›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2024

Next-generation data filtering in the genomics era.

William Hemstrom, Jared A Grummer, Gordon Luikart, Mark R Christie

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

William Hemstrom *Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. whemstro@purdue.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2408-9535
Jared A Grummer *Flathead Lake Biological Station, Wildlife Biology Program and Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.
Gordon LuikartFlathead Lake Biological Station, Wildlife Biology Program and Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.
Mark R ChristieDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. christ99@purdue.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7285-5364

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic data are ubiquitous across disciplines, from agriculture to biodiversity, ecology, evolution and human health. However, these datasets often contain noise or errors and are missing information that can affect the accuracy and reliability of subsequent computational analyses and conclusions. A key step in genomic data analysis is filtering - removing sequencing bases, reads, genetic variants and/or individuals from a dataset - to improve data quality for downstream analyses. Researchers are confronted with a multitude of choices when filtering genomic data; they must choose which filters to apply and select appropriate thresholds. To help usher in the next generation of genomic data filtering, we review and suggest best practices to improve the implementation, reproducibility and reporting standards for filter types and thresholds commonly applied to genomic datasets. We focus mainly on filters for minor allele frequency, missing data per individual or per locus, linkage disequilibrium and Hardy-Weinberg deviations. Using simulated and empirical datasets, we illustrate the large effects of different filtering thresholds on common population genetics statistics, such as Tajima's D value, population differentiation (F

Indexed as

GenomicsAnimalsGene FrequencyGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLinkage Disequilibrium

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.