2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.13.039016
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CNV-PG: a machine-learning framework for accurate copy number variation predicting and genotyping

Abstract: 10Motivation: Copy-number variants (CNVs) are one of the major causes of genetic disorders. 11However, current methods for CNV calling have high false-positive rates and low concordance, and 12 a few of them can accurately genotype CNVs.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We also included in the comparison an alternative Python implementation of the CNVnator algorithm called CNVpytor (v1.2.1), which provides speed improvements and additional features when compared to its predecessor [ 17 ]. Another popular tool, Manta v1.6.0 [ 18 ], which is considered one of the top-performing CNV detection algorithms overall in terms of recall, accuracy and precision on both simulated and real data [ 9 , 11 ], was also added to the comparison. In contrast to ConanVarvar, Control-FREEC and CNVnator/CNVpytor, Manta uses read-pair and split-read information instead of read depth.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also included in the comparison an alternative Python implementation of the CNVnator algorithm called CNVpytor (v1.2.1), which provides speed improvements and additional features when compared to its predecessor [ 17 ]. Another popular tool, Manta v1.6.0 [ 18 ], which is considered one of the top-performing CNV detection algorithms overall in terms of recall, accuracy and precision on both simulated and real data [ 9 , 11 ], was also added to the comparison. In contrast to ConanVarvar, Control-FREEC and CNVnator/CNVpytor, Manta uses read-pair and split-read information instead of read depth.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%