ArticleGigaScience2026
Improved discovery of de novo mutations using TrioDNM and VRFS.
Article in GigaScience, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying de novo mutations (DNM) is an important component of both genetic research studies and clinical diagnostic workflows, but is complicated by distinguishing true mutations from sequencing errors. Likelihood-based error models are more accurate than inferring mutations from genotypes alone, but the resulting callsets still have high false positive rates.
resultsWe identify that the main source of false positive DNMs comes from the use of genotype likelihoods in an otherwise robust mutational model. To address this issue, we propose two alternative methods that build on an existing DNM calling approach, DeNovoGear, but with higher accuracy and no decrease in sensitivity.Furthermore, we developed a method that collects allele-specific frequency profiles in the sequenced cohort from across many unrelated samples and identifies sites that either demonstrate high rates of sequencing and mapping errors, or are unlikely to be clinically significant due to their high recurrence rate.
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.