ArticleLife science alliance2025
Efficient identification of de novo mutations in family trios: a consensus-based informatic approach.
Article in Life science alliance, 2025. 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.
- Genomic innovations in cancer prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and precision therapeutics.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate identification of de novo variants (DNVs) remains challenging despite advances in sequencing technologies, often requiring ad hoc filters and manual inspection. Here, we explored a purely informatic, consensus-based approach for identifying DNVs in proband-parent trios using short-read genome sequencing data. We evaluated variant calls generated by three sequence analysis pipelines-GATK HaplotypeCaller, DeepTrio, and Velsera GRAF-and examined the assumption that a requirement of consensus can serve as an effective filter for high-quality DNVs. Comparison with a highly accurate DNV set, validated previously by manual inspection and Sanger sequencing, demonstrated that consensus filtering, followed by a force-calling procedure, effectively removed false-positive calls, achieving 98.0-99.4% precision. At the same time, sensitivity of the workflow based on the previously established DNVs reached 99.4%. Validation in the HG002-3-4 Genome-in-a-Bottle trio confirmed its robustness, with precision reaching 99.2% and sensitivity up to 96.6%. We believe that this consensus approach can be widely implemented as an automated bioinformatics workflow suitable for large-scale analyses without the need for manual intervention, especially when very high precision is valued over sensitivity.
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.