ReviewEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Benchmark of computational methods to detect digenism in sequencing data.
Review in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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.
- Summer reading 2025 in EJHG.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digenic inheritance is characterized by the combined alteration of two different genes leading to a disease. It could explain the etiology of many currently undiagnosed rare diseases. With the advent of next-generation sequencing technologies, the identification of digenic inheritance patterns has become more technically feasible, yet still poses significant challenges without any gold standard method. Here, we present a comprehensive overview of the existing methods developed to detect digenic inheritance in sequencing data and provide a classification in cohort-based and individual-based methods. The latter category of methods appeared the most applicable to rare diseases, especially the ones not needing patient phenotypic description as input. We discuss the availability of the different methods, their output and scalability to inform potential users. Focusing on methods to detect digenic inheritance in the case of very rare or heterogeneous diseases, we propose a benchmark using different real-life scenarios involving known digenic and putative neutral pairs of genes. Among these different methods, DiGePred stood out as the one giving the least number of false positives, ARBOCK as giving the greatest number of true positives, and DIEP as having the best balance between both. By synthesizing the state-of-the-art techniques and providing insights into their practical utility, this benchmark serves as a valuable resource for researchers and clinicians in selecting suitable methodologies for detecting digenic inheritance in a wide range of disorders using sequencing data.
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.