ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Comparing full variation profile analysis with the conventional consensus method in SARS-CoV-2 phylogeny.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study proposes a novel approach to studying severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus mutations through sequencing data comparison. Traditional consensus-based methods, which focus on the most common nucleotide at each position, might overlook or obscure the presence of low-frequency variants. Our method, in contrast, retains all sequenced nucleotides at each position, forming a genomic matrix. Utilizing simulated short reads from genomes with specified mutations, we contrasted our genomic matrix approach with the consensus sequence method. Our matrix methodology, across multiple simulated datasets, accurately reflected the known mutations with an average accuracy improvement of 20% over the consensus method. In real-world tests using data from GISAID and NCBI-SRA, our approach demonstrated an increase in reliability by reducing the error margin by approximately 15%. The genomic matrix approach offers a more accurate representation of the viral genomic diversity, thereby providing superior insights into virus evolution and epidemiology.
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.