These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32732891)

  • 1. SomaticCombiner: improving the performance of somatic variant calling based on evaluation tests and a consensus approach.
    Wang M; Luo W; Jones K; Bian X; Williams R; Higson H; Wu D; Hicks B; Yeager M; Zhu B
    Sci Rep; 2020 Jul; 10(1):12898. PubMed ID: 32732891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Intersect-then-combine approach: improving the performance of somatic variant calling in whole exome sequencing data using multiple aligners and callers.
    Callari M; Sammut SJ; De Mattos-Arruda L; Bruna A; Rueda OM; Chin SF; Caldas C
    Genome Med; 2017 Apr; 9(1):35. PubMed ID: 28420412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of somatic mutation calling methods in amplicon and whole exome sequence data.
    Xu H; DiCarlo J; Satya RV; Peng Q; Wang Y
    BMC Genomics; 2014 Mar; 15():244. PubMed ID: 24678773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Improving somatic exome sequencing performance by biological replicates.
    Cebeci YE; Erturk RA; Ergun MA; Baysan M
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2024 Mar; 25(1):124. PubMed ID: 38519906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy and reproducibility of somatic point mutation calling in clinical-type targeted sequencing data.
    Karimnezhad A; Palidwor GA; Thavorn K; Stewart DJ; Campbell PA; Lo B; Perkins TJ
    BMC Med Genomics; 2020 Oct; 13(1):156. PubMed ID: 33059707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Consensus Genotyper for Exome Sequencing (CGES): improving the quality of exome variant genotypes.
    Trubetskoy V; Rodriguez A; Dave U; Campbell N; Crawford EL; Cook EH; Sutcliffe JS; Foster I; Madduri R; Cox NJ; Davis LK
    Bioinformatics; 2015 Jan; 31(2):187-93. PubMed ID: 25270638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of Nine Somatic Variant Callers for Detection of Somatic Mutations in Exome and Targeted Deep Sequencing Data.
    Krøigård AB; Thomassen M; Lænkholm AV; Kruse TA; Larsen MJ
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(3):e0151664. PubMed ID: 27002637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluating the performance of low-frequency variant calling tools for the detection of variants from short-read deep sequencing data.
    Xiang X; Lu B; Song D; Li J; Shu K; Pu D
    Sci Rep; 2023 Nov; 13(1):20444. PubMed ID: 37993475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Somatic and Germline Variant Calling from Next-Generation Sequencing Data.
    Chang TC; Xu K; Cheng Z; Wu G
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2022; 1361():37-54. PubMed ID: 35230682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. NeoMutate: an ensemble machine learning framework for the prediction of somatic mutations in cancer.
    Anzar I; Sverchkova A; Stratford R; Clancy T
    BMC Med Genomics; 2019 May; 12(1):63. PubMed ID: 31096972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Integrated approach to generate artificial samples with low tumor fraction for somatic variant calling benchmarking.
    Sergi A; Beltrame L; Marchini S; Masseroli M
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2024 May; 25(1):180. PubMed ID: 38720249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Simple combination of multiple somatic variant callers to increase accuracy.
    Trevarton AJ; Chang JT; Symmans WF
    Sci Rep; 2023 May; 13(1):8463. PubMed ID: 37231022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. RDscan: A New Method for Improving Germline and Somatic Variant Calling Based on Read Depth Distribution.
    Lee S; Hong S; Woo J; Lee JH; Kim K; Kim L; Park K; Jung J
    J Comput Biol; 2022 Sep; 29(9):987-1000. PubMed ID: 35749140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Variant callers for next-generation sequencing data: a comparison study.
    Liu X; Han S; Wang Z; Gelernter J; Yang BZ
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(9):e75619. PubMed ID: 24086590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. SeqMule: automated pipeline for analysis of human exome/genome sequencing data.
    Guo Y; Ding X; Shen Y; Lyon GJ; Wang K
    Sci Rep; 2015 Sep; 5():14283. PubMed ID: 26381817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of post-alignment processing in variant discovery from whole exome data.
    Tian S; Yan H; Kalmbach M; Slager SL
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Oct; 17(1):403. PubMed ID: 27716037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparing somatic mutation-callers: beyond Venn diagrams.
    Kim SY; Speed TP
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2013 Jun; 14():189. PubMed ID: 23758877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A cancer cell-line titration series for evaluating somatic classification.
    Denroche RE; Mullen L; Timms L; Beck T; Yung CK; Stein L; McPherson JD; Brown AM
    BMC Res Notes; 2015 Dec; 8():823. PubMed ID: 26708082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of Hybridization Capture Versus Amplicon-Based Methods for Whole-Exome Sequencing.
    Samorodnitsky E; Jewell BM; Hagopian R; Miya J; Wing MR; Lyon E; Damodaran S; Bhatt D; Reeser JW; Datta J; Roychowdhury S
    Hum Mutat; 2015 Sep; 36(9):903-14. PubMed ID: 26110913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.