ArticleCommunications biology2024
StratoMod: predicting sequencing and variant calling errors with interpretable machine learning.
Article in Communications biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- VCboost: reducing false positives in long-read variant calling for single-nucleotide polymorphism and indel detection in challenging genomic regions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- AI/ML-Driven Gene Analysis: New Perspectives on Variant Calling in Normal Human Tissue Using scRNA-seq Data.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- A complete diploid human genome benchmark for personalized genomics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Increasing pathogenic germline variant diagnosis rates in precision medicine: current best practices and future opportunities.Human genomics · 2025Review
- Accurate human genome analysis with element avidity sequencing.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- The GIAB genomic stratifications resource for human reference genomes.Nature communications · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the variety in sequencing platforms, mappers, and variant callers, no single pipeline is optimal across the entire human genome. Therefore, developers, clinicians, and researchers need to make tradeoffs when designing pipelines for their application. Currently, assessing such tradeoffs relies on intuition about how a certain pipeline will perform in a given genomic context. We present StratoMod, which addresses this problem using an interpretable machine-learning classifier to predict germline variant calling errors in a data-driven manner. We show StratoMod can precisely predict recall using Hifi or Illumina and leverage StratoMod's interpretability to measure contributions from difficult-to-map and homopolymer regions for each respective outcome. Furthermore, we use Statomod to assess the effect of mismapping on predicted recall using linear vs. graph-based references, and identify the hard-to-map regions where graph-based methods excelled and by how much. For these we utilize our draft benchmark based on the Q100 HG002 assembly, which contains previously-inaccessible difficult regions. Furthermore, StratoMod presents a new method of predicting clinically relevant variants likely to be missed, which is an improvement over current pipelines which only filter variants likely to be false. We anticipate this being useful for performing precise risk-reward analyses when designing variant calling pipelines.
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.