Cited by 253

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A synthetic-diploid benchmark for accurate variant-calling evaluation

Li, Heng, Bloom, Jonathan M., Farjoun, Yossi, Fleharty, Mark, Gauthier, Laura, Neale, Benjamin, MacArthur, Daniel·2018·Nature Methods

Published version of a preprint

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41592-018-0054-7

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The calls in the HG002 truth set were based on aligning a high-confidence assembly using dipcall.

    “The calls in this set were based on aligning a high-confidence assembly using dipcall 53 (labeled in figure as 'dipcall CHM13 v2.0').”

    From Pangenome graph construction from genome alignments with Minigraph-Cactus (2024) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Methods section (‘Constructing the truth call set and confident regions’; page not provided) supports the general idea of deriving variant calls by aligning assemblies to a reference. But it describes CHM1 and CHM13 assemblies aligned with minimap2 to construct the Syndip call set, not an HG002 truth set generated using dipcall or CHM13 v2.0. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Zook, J. M. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 246–251 (2014). · DOI
  2. Eberle, M. A. et al. Genome Res. 27, 157–164 (2017). · DOI
  3. Li, H. Bioinformatics 30, 2843–2851 (2014). · DOI
  4. Chin, C. S. et al. Nat. Methods 13, 1050–1054 (2016). · DOI
  5. Chin, C. S. et al. Nat. Methods 10, 563–569 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Seo, J. S. et al. Nature 538, 243–247 (2016). · DOI
  7. Huddleston, J. et al. Genome Res. 27, 677–685 (2017). · DOI
  8. Li, H. arXiv Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3997 (2013). · arXiv
  9. Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Li, H. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Garrison, E. & Marth, G. arXiv Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3907 (2012). · arXiv
  12. Rimmer, A. et al. Nat. Genet. 46, 912–918 (2014). · DOI
  13. Li, H. Bioinformatics 27, 2987–2993 (2011). · DOI
  14. DePristo, M. A. et al. Nat. Genet. 43, 491–498 (2011). · DOI
  15. Cleary, J.G. et al. bioRxiv Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/08/03/023754 (2015).
  16. Robinson, J. T. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 24–26 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Morgulis, A., Gertz, E. M., Schäffer, A. A. & Agarwala, R. J. Comput. Biol. 13, 1028–1040 (2006). · DOI
  18. Li, H. Bioinformatics 31, 3694–3696 (2015). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Li, H., Bloom, J. M., Farjoun, Y., Fleharty, M., Gauthier, L., Neale, B., & MacArthur, D.
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2018-07-16
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
595-597
ISSN
  • 1548-7091
  • 1548-7105
Cited by
253
References
4
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review