ArticleScientific reports2026
Systematic performance evaluation and application validation of an end-to-end NGS workstation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) library preparation is a core component of precision genomics, but it is commonly constrained by inefficiency, variability, and low throughput of manual protocols. To address these limitations, we developed and systematically evaluated a fully automated NGS workstations and further validated its performance across representative application scenarios. The automated system reduced total processing time from 8 to 10 to 4–6 h. At the same time, it maintained similar performance in pre-library metric, including DNA yield and fragment size, as well as post-capture sequencing metrics (Q30 > 90%, mapping rates > 95%, on-target rates 85–90%). The duplication rate was reduced to 5–8%, compared with 10–15% for manual methods, indicating increased library complexity. Bioinformatic evaluation of inter-species read mapping showed minimal cross-contamination, with a maximum contamination ratio of 0.0003%, indicating effective sample isolation in the automated workflow. High concordance in variant detection was observed between automated and manual workflows. Overall, this automated workstation provides a standardized and reproducible workflow that supports scalable precision genomics applications.
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.