Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 6,967

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Base-Calling of Automated Sequencer Traces Using Phred. I. Accuracy Assessment

Open access
Ewing, Brent, Hillier, LaDeana, Wendl, Michael C., Green, Phil·1998·Genome Research

Abstract

The availability of massive amounts of DNA sequence information has begun to revolutionize the practice of biology. As a result, current large-scale sequencing output, while impressive, is not adequate to keep pace with growing demand and, in particular, is far short of what will be required to obtain the 3-billion-base human genome sequence by the target date of 2005. To reach this goal, improved automation will be essential, and it is particularly important that human involvement in sequence data processing be significantly reduced or eliminated. Progress in this respect will require both improved accuracy of the data processing software and reliable accuracy measures to reduce the need for human involvement in error correction and make human review more efficient. Here, we describe one step toward that goal: a base-calling program for automated sequencer traces,phred,with improved accuracy.phred appears to be the first base-calling program to achieve a lower error rate than the ABI software, averaging 40%–50% fewer errors in the data sets examined independent of position in read, machine running conditions, or sequencing chemistry.

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 · 10.1101/gr.8.3.175

Cites

2 of 2 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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ewing, B., Hillier, L., Wendl, M. C., & Green, P.
Venue
Genome Research
Published
1998-03-01
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
175-185
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2121016876
Cited by
6,967
References
2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.