ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
From ideal to practical: Heterogeneity of student-generated variant lists highlights hidden reproducibility gaps.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies offer detailed and inexpensive identification of the genetic structure of living organisms. The massive data volume necessitates the utilization of advanced computational resources for analyses. However, the rapid accumulation of data and the urgent need for analysis tools have caused the development of imperfect software solutions. Given their immense potential in clinical applications and the recent reproducibility crisis discussions in science and technology, these tools must be thoroughly examined. Typically, NGS data analysis tools are benchmarked under homogeneous conditions, with well-trained personnel and ideal hardware and data environments. However, in the real world, these analyses are done under heterogeneous conditions in terms of computing environments and experience levels. This difference is mostly overlooked, therefore studies that examine NGS workflows generated under various conditions would be highly valuable. Moreover, a detailed assessment of the difficulties faced by the trainees would allow for improved educational programs for better NGS analysis training. Considering these needs, we designed an elective undergraduate bioinformatics course project for computer engineering students at Istanbul Technical University. Students were tasked to perform and compare 12 different somatic variant calling pipelines on the recently published SEQC2 dataset. Upon examining the results, we have realized that despite seeming correct, the final variant lists created by different student groups display a high level of heterogeneity. Notably, the operating systems and installation methods were the most influential factors in variant-calling performance. Here, we present detailed evaluations of our case study and provide insights for better bioinformatics training.
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.