490 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29665779)
1. A machine learning model to determine the accuracy of variant calls in capture-based next generation sequencing.
van den Akker J; Mishne G; Zimmer AD; Zhou AY
BMC Genomics; 2018 Apr; 19(1):263. PubMed ID: 29665779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Analysis of machine learning algorithms as integrative tools for validation of next generation sequencing data.
Marceddu G; Dallavilla T; Guerri G; Zulian A; Marinelli C; Bertelli M
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci; 2019 Sep; 23(18):8139-8147. PubMed ID: 31599443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Machine learning random forest for predicting oncosomatic variant NGS analysis.
Pellegrino E; Jacques C; Beaufils N; Nanni I; Carlioz A; Metellus P; Ouafik L
Sci Rep; 2021 Nov; 11(1):21820. PubMed ID: 34750410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Software-Assisted Manual Review of Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing Data: An Alternative to Routine Sanger Sequencing Confirmation with Equivalent Results in >15,000 Germline DNA Screens.
Muzzey D; Kash S; Johnson JI; Melroy LM; Kaleta P; Pierce KA; Ready K; Kang HP; Haas KR
J Mol Diagn; 2019 Mar; 21(2):296-306. PubMed ID: 30529126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Sanger Confirmation Is Required to Achieve Optimal Sensitivity and Specificity in Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Testing.
Mu W; Lu HM; Chen J; Li S; Elliott AM
J Mol Diagn; 2016 Nov; 18(6):923-932. PubMed ID: 27720647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. tarSVM: Improving the accuracy of variant calls derived from microfluidic PCR-based targeted next generation sequencing using a support vector machine.
Gillies CE; Otto EA; Vega-Warner V; Robertson CC; Sanna-Cherchi S; Gharavi A; Crawford B; Bhimma R; Winkler C; ; ; Kang HM; Sampson MG
BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Jun; 17(1):233. PubMed ID: 27287006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Confirming Variants in Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Testing by Sanger Sequencing.
Baudhuin LM; Lagerstedt SA; Klee EW; Fadra N; Oglesbee D; Ferber MJ
J Mol Diagn; 2015 Jul; 17(4):456-61. PubMed ID: 25960255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. SNooPer: a machine learning-based method for somatic variant identification from low-pass next-generation sequencing.
Spinella JF; Mehanna P; Vidal R; Saillour V; Cassart P; Richer C; Ouimet M; Healy J; Sinnett D
BMC Genomics; 2016 Nov; 17(1):912. PubMed ID: 27842494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Systematic Evaluation of Sanger Validation of Next-Generation Sequencing Variants.
Beck TF; Mullikin JC; ; Biesecker LG
Clin Chem; 2016 Apr; 62(4):647-54. PubMed ID: 26847218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Sanger Validation of High-Throughput Sequencing in Genetic Diagnosis: Still the Best Practice?
De Cario R; Kura A; Suraci S; Magi A; Volta A; Marcucci R; Gori AM; Pepe G; Giusti B; Sticchi E
Front Genet; 2020; 11():592588. PubMed ID: 33343633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Validation and assessment of variant calling pipelines for next-generation sequencing.
Pirooznia M; Kramer M; Parla J; Goes FS; Potash JB; McCombie WR; Zandi PP
Hum Genomics; 2014 Jul; 8(1):14. PubMed ID: 25078893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A Rigorous Interlaboratory Examination of the Need to Confirm Next-Generation Sequencing-Detected Variants with an Orthogonal Method in Clinical Genetic Testing.
Lincoln SE; Truty R; Lin CF; Zook JM; Paul J; Ramey VH; Salit M; Rehm HL; Nussbaum RL; Lebo MS
J Mol Diagn; 2019 Mar; 21(2):318-329. PubMed ID: 30610921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of an amplicon-based next-generation sequencing panel for detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic variants.
Shin S; Hwang IS; Lee ST; Choi JR
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2016 Aug; 158(3):433-40. PubMed ID: 27383479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comprehensive assessment of Next-Generation Sequencing variants validation using a secondary technology.
Zheng J; Zhang H; Banerjee S; Li Y; Zhou J; Yang Q; Tan X; Han P; Fu Q; Cui X; Yuan Y; Zhang M; Shen R; Song H; Zhang X; Zhao L; Peng Z; Wang W; Yin Y
Mol Genet Genomic Med; 2019 Jul; 7(7):e00748. PubMed ID: 31165590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Integration of Wet and Dry Bench Processes Optimizes Targeted Next-generation Sequencing of Low-quality and Low-quantity Tumor Biopsies.
Houghton J; Hadd AG; Zeigler R; Haynes BC; Latham GJ
J Vis Exp; 2016 Apr; (110):e53836. PubMed ID: 27166994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Using genotype array data to compare multi- and single-sample variant calls and improve variant call sets from deep coverage whole-genome sequencing data.
Shringarpure SS; Mathias RA; Hernandez RD; O'Connor TD; Szpiech ZA; Torres R; De La Vega FM; Bustamante CD; Barnes KC; Taub MA;
Bioinformatics; 2017 Apr; 33(8):1147-1153. PubMed ID: 28035032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. GATK hard filtering: tunable parameters to improve variant calling for next generation sequencing targeted gene panel data.
De Summa S; Malerba G; Pinto R; Mori A; Mijatovic V; Tommasi S
BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Mar; 18(Suppl 5):119. PubMed ID: 28361668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of the Ion Torrent PGM sequencing workflow for the routine rapid detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations.
Zanella I; Merola F; Biasiotto G; Archetti S; Spinelli E; Di Lorenzo D
Exp Mol Pathol; 2017 Apr; 102(2):314-320. PubMed ID: 28263838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. ClinQC: a tool for quality control and cleaning of Sanger and NGS data in clinical research.
Pandey RV; Pabinger S; Kriegner A; Weinhäusel A
BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Feb; 17():56. PubMed ID: 26830926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Performance evaluation of pipelines for mapping, variant calling and interval padding, for the analysis of NGS germline panels.
Zanti M; Michailidou K; Loizidou MA; Machattou C; Pirpa P; Christodoulou K; Spyrou GM; Kyriacou K; Hadjisavvas A
BMC Bioinformatics; 2021 Apr; 22(1):218. PubMed ID: 33910496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
