ReviewGigaScience2022
Computational prediction of human deep intronic variation.
Review in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Kidney Transcriptome Sequencing Improves Molecular Diagnosis and Reveals Splicing Complexity Across the Alport Spectrum.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- Computational variant predictors for pharmacogenomics: from evaluation of single alleles to assessment of adverse drug reactions to antidepressants.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2026Article
- Identification of novelResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Molecular mechanisms and therapeutic strategies for the recurrent F9 (c.520 + 13 A > G) variant in hemophilia B.Human genomics · 2026Article
- Evolving computational paradigms for noncoding variant pathogenicity prediction.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Review
- Cell modeling and rescue of a novel noncoding genetic cause of glycogen storage disease IX.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- Article
- RNA-based diagnostic studies in genetics: Review and guidance from a multidisciplinary French network.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- Clinical and data-driven optimization of Genomiser for rare disease patients: experience from the Hong Kong Genome Project.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Next-Generation Sequencing: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Clinically relevant pseudoexons of the GALNS gene and their antisense-based correction.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Detection of mRNA Transcript Variants.Genes · 2025Review
- Patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells to study non-canonical splicing variants associated with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Stem cell research · 2024Article
- Computational prediction of human deep intronic variation.GigaScience · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adoption of whole-genome sequencing in genetic screens has facilitated the detection of genetic variation in the intronic regions of genes, far from annotated splice sites. However, selecting an appropriate computational tool to discriminate functionally relevant genetic variants from those with no effect is challenging, particularly for deep intronic regions where independent benchmarks are scarce.
resultsIn this study, we have provided an overview of the computational methods available and the extent to which they can be used to analyze deep intronic variation. We leveraged diverse datasets to extensively evaluate tool performance across different intronic regions, distinguishing between variants that are expected to disrupt splicing through different molecular mechanisms. Notably, we compared the performance of SpliceAI, a widely used sequence-based deep learning model, with that of more recent methods that extend its original implementation. We observed considerable differences in tool performance depending on the region considered, with variants generating cryptic splice sites being better predicted than those that potentially affect splicing regulatory elements. Finally, we devised a novel quantitative assessment of tool interpretability and found that tools providing mechanistic explanations of their predictions are often correct with respect to the ground - information, but the use of these tools results in decreased predictive power when compared to black box methods.
conclusionsOur findings translate into practical recommendations for tool usage and provide a reference framework for applying prediction tools in deep intronic regions, enabling more informed decision-making by practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.