ArticlePeerJ2024
DTDHM: detection of tandem duplications based on hybrid methods using next-generation sequencing data.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- A copy number variation detection method based on OCSVM algorithm using multi strategies integration.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Background: Tandem duplication (TD) is a common and important type of structural variation in the human genome. TDs have been shown to play an essential role in many diseases, including cancer. However, it is difficult to accurately detect TDs due to the uneven distribution of reads and the inherent complexity of next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. Methods: This article proposes a method called DTDHM (detection of tandem duplications based on hybrid methods), which utilizes NGS data to detect TDs in a single sample. DTDHM builds a pipeline that integrates read depth (RD), split read (SR), and paired-end mapping (PEM) signals. To solve the problem of uneven distribution of normal and abnormal samples, DTDHM uses the K-nearest neighbor (KNN) algorithm for multi-feature classification prediction. Then, the qualified split reads and discordant reads are extracted and analyzed to achieve accurate localization of variation sites. This article compares DTDHM with three other methods on 450 simulated datasets and five real datasets. Results: In 450 simulated data samples, DTDHM consistently maintained the highest F1-score. The average F1-score of DTDHM, SVIM, TARDIS, and TIDDIT were 80.0%, 56.2%, 43.4%, and 67.1%, respectively. The F1-score of DTDHM had a small variation range and its detection effect was the most stable and 1.2 times that of the suboptimal method. Most of the boundary biases of DTDHM fluctuated around 20 bp, and its boundary deviation detection ability was better than TARDIS and TIDDIT. In real data experiments, five real sequencing samples (NA19238, NA19239, NA19240, HG00266, and NA12891) were used to test DTDHM. The results showed that DTDHM had the highest overlap density score (ODS) and F1-score of the four methods. Conclusions: Compared with the other three methods, DTDHM achieved excellent results in terms of sensitivity, precision, F1-score, and boundary bias. These results indicate that DTDHM can be used as a reliable tool for detecting TDs from NGS data, especially in the case of low coverage depth and tumor purity samples.
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.