ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Validation of the NovaSeq6000 platform and automated library preparation for CE-IVD equivalence.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Confirmation of Exome Sequencing Results Using Sanger Sequencing-Considerations in a Low-Resource Setting.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2026Article
- Molecular Identification ofInsects · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies in clinical diagnostics requires rigorous validation of sequencing platforms and analytical workflows. In this study, we validated the performance of the Illumina NovaSeq6000 Research Use Only (RUO) platform, combined with automated library preparation using the Hamilton Microlab STAR system, by comparison to the CE-IVD certified NovaSeq6000Dx platform, which currently relies on manual library preparation. A total of 96 clinical samples underwent whole-exome sequencing (WES) on both platforms. Variant detection performance was assessed for single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and copy number variants (CNVs). The RUO platform demonstrated 100 % concordance with the CE-IVD system for clinically relevant SNVs, with full agreement across positive, negative, and overall percent agreement metrics. For CNVs larger than 150 kb, the positive percent agreement was 79 %, rising to 91.7 % for CNVs > 900 kb. Coverage uniformity and autosomal callability were consistently high across platforms. These results confirm the analytical equivalence of the NovaSeq6000 RUO configuration with automated library preparation for clinical-grade WES. This validation framework supports the adoption of scalable, cost-effective workflows that can achieve diagnostic performance comparable to CE-IVD certified systems and may facilitate routine implementation of exome sequencing in clinical laboratories.
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.