ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2024
Enhancing Clinical Applications by Evaluation of Sensitivity and Specificity in Whole Exome Sequencing.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 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.
- Comparison of Whole Exome Sequencing Commercial Kits Performance Across Diverse Tissue Sources.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The cost-effectiveness of whole exome sequencing (WES) remains controversial due to variant call variability, necessitating sensitivity and specificity evaluation. WES was performed by three companies (AA, BB, and CC) using reference standards composed of DNA from hydatidiform mole and individual blood at various ratios. Sensitivity was assessed by the detection rate of null-homozygote (N-H) alleles at expected variant allelic fractions, while false positive (FP) errors were counted for unexpected alleles. Sensitivity was approximately 20% for in-house results from BB and CC and around 5% for AA. Dynamic Read Analysis for GENomics (DRAGEN) analyses identified 1.34 to 1.71 times more variants, detecting over 96% of in-house variants, with sensitivity for common variants increasing to 5%. In-house FP errors varied significantly among companies (up to 13.97 times), while DRAGEN minimized this variation. Despite DRAGEN showing higher FP errors for BB and CC, the increased sensitivity highlights the importance of effective bioinformatic conditions. We also assessed the potential effects of target enrichment and proposed optimal cutoff values for the read depth and variant allele fraction in WES. Optimizing bioinformatic analysis based on sensitivity and specificity from reference standards can enhance variant detection and improve the clinical utility of WES.
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.