ArticleInterdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences2025
cascAGS: Comparative Analysis of SNP Calling Methods for Human Genome Data in the Absence of Gold Standard.
Article in Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mendelian Randomization Study on Serum Metabolites and Diabetic Nephropathy Risk: Identifying Potential Biomarkers for Early Intervention.Current pharmaceutical design · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The development of third-generation sequencing has accelerated the boom of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calling methods, but evaluating accuracy remains challenging owing to the absence of the SNP gold standard. The definitions for without-gold-standard and performance metrics and their estimation are urgently needed. Additionally, the possible correlations between different SNP loci should also be further explored. To address these challenges, we first introduced the concept of a gold standard and imperfect gold standard under the consistency framework and gave the corresponding definitions of sensitivity and specificity. A latent class model (LCM) was established to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of callers. Furthermore, we incorporated different dependency structures into LCM to investigate their impact on sensitivity and specificity. The performance of LCM was illustrated by comparing the accuracy of BCFtools, DeepVariant, FreeBayes, and GATK on various datasets. Through estimations across multiple datasets, the results indicate that LCM is well-suitable for evaluating callers without the SNP gold standard, and accurate inclusion of the dependency between variations is crucial for better performance ranking. DeepVariant has a higher sum of sensitivity and specificity than other callers, followed by GATK and BCFtools. FreeBayes has low sensitivity but high specificity. Notably, appropriate sequencing coverage is another important factor for precise callers' evaluation. Most importantly, a web interface for assessing and comparing different callers was developed to simplify the evaluation process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39443427What 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.