Dataset Information

Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples.

ABSTRACT: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a powerful screening method for fetal aneuploidy detection, relying on laboratory and computational analysis of cell-free DNA. Although several published computational NIPT analysis tools are available, no prior comprehensive, head-to-head accuracy comparison of the various tools has been published. Here, we compared the outcome accuracies obtained for clinically validated samples with five commonly used computational NIPT aneuploidy analysis tools (WisecondorX, NIPTeR, NIPTmer, RAPIDR, and GIPseq) across various sequencing depths (coverage) and fetal DNA fractions. The sample set included cases of fetal trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), and trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome). We determined that all of the compared tools were considerably affected by lower sequencing depths, such that increasing proportions of undetected trisomy cases (false negatives) were observed as the sequencing depth decreased. We summarised our benchmarking results and highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of each computational NIPT software. To conclude, trisomy detection for lower coverage NIPT samples (e.g. 2.5M reads per sample) is technically possible but can, with some NIPT tools, produce troubling rates of inaccurate trisomy detection, especially in low-FF samples.

SUBMITTER: Paluoja P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8722721 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are vital to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine within healthcare. Screening titles and abstracts (T&Ab) for inclusion in a systematic review is an intensive, and often collaborative, step. The use of appropriate tools is therefore important. In this study, we identified and evaluated the usability of software tools that support T&Ab screening for systematic reviews within healthcare research.MethodsWe identified software tools using three search methods: a web-based search; a search of the online "systematic review toolbox"; and screening of references in existing literature. We included tools that were accessible and available for testing at the time of the study (December 2018), do not require specific computing infrastructure and provide basic screening functionality for systematic reviews. Key properties of each software tool were identified using a feature analysis adapted for this purpose. This analysis included a weighting developed by a group of medical researchers, therefore prioritising the most relevant features. The highest scoring tools from the feature analysis were then included in a user survey, in which we further investigated the suitability of the tools for supporting T&Ab screening amongst systematic reviewers working in medical research.ResultsFifteen tools met our inclusion criteria. They vary significantly in relation to cost, scope and intended user community. Six of the identified tools (Abstrackr, Colandr, Covidence, DRAGON, EPPI-Reviewer and Rayyan) scored higher than 75% in the feature analysis and were included in the user survey. Of these, Covidence and Rayyan were the most popular with the survey respondents. Their usability scored highly across a range of metrics, with all surveyed researchers (n =?6) stating that they would be likely (or very likely) to use these tools in the future.ConclusionsBased on this study, we would recommend Covidence and Rayyan to systematic reviewers looking for suitable and easy to use tools to support T&Ab screening within healthcare research. These two tools consistently demonstrated good alignment with user requirements. We acknowledge, however, the role of some of the other tools we considered in providing more specialist features that may be of great importance to many researchers.

Project description:Objective Accurate measurement of adult and child screen media use are needed to robustly assess its impact on health outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review screen media use measurement tools that have been validated against an objective “gold standard” tool. Methods The search strategy was initially conducted in Medline Ovid and translated to Embase, Web of Science, PsychInfo and Cochrane. A modified natural language search was conducted in Google Scholar and IEEE. The initial search was conducted in March 2021, and an updated search was conducted in June 2022. Additional studies were included from the references. Studies had to describe the validation of a tool to measure screen media use on participants of any age against a ‘gold standard’ or comparable objective measure. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) was used to assess the criterion validity. Four authors reviewed the titles in two rounds and extracted data. Results Twenty-nine articles were included in the review. Studies measured TV, computer, mobile device and social media site screen media use through: self or parent report, direct or video observation, computer and mobile device use tracking programs, and through other novel devices such as wearable devices and cameras. Correlations of self or parent report of screen media with the gold standard were lower than correlations of technology-based measures, and video observation with the gold standard. The COSMIN criterion validity ratings ranged from poor to excellent; most of the studies received a global score of fair or poor. Conclusions Technology based validated tools that more directly measure screen use are emerging that have been validated against a gold standard for measuring screen use. However, practical, objective measures of diverse types of screen media use that have been tested on diverse populations are needed to better understand the impact of screen media use on the development and physical and mental health of children and adults.

Project description:BackgroundWith the continuing decrease in cost of whole genome sequencing (WGS), we have already approached the point of inflection where WGS testing has become economically feasible, facilitating broader access to the benefits that are helping to define WGS as the new diagnostic standard. WGS provides unique opportunities for detection of structural variants; however, such analyses, despite being recognized by the research community, have not previously made their way into routine clinical practice.ResultsWe have developed a clinically validated pipeline for highly specific and sensitive detection of structural variants basing on 30X PCR-free WGS. Using a combination of breakpoint analysis of split and discordant reads, and read depth analysis, the pipeline identifies structural variants down to single base pair resolution. False positives are minimized using calculations for loss of heterozygosity and bi-modal heterozygous variant allele frequencies to enhance heterozygous deletion and duplication detection respectively. Compound and potential compound combinations of structural variants and small sequence changes are automatically detected. To facilitate clinical interpretation, identified variants are annotated with phenotype information derived from HGMD Professional and population allele frequencies derived from public and Variantyx allele frequency databases. Single base pair resolution enables easy visual inspection of potentially causal variants using the IGV genome browser as well as easy biochemical validation via PCR. Analytical and clinical sensitivity and specificity of the pipeline has been validated using analysis of Genome in a Bottle reference genomes and known positive samples confirmed by orthogonal sequencing technologies.ConclusionConsistent read depth of PCR-free WGS enables reliable detection of structural variants of any size. Annotation both on gene and variant level allows clinicians to match reported patient phenotype with detected variants and confidently report causative finding in all clinical cases used for validation.

Project description:Background:For evaluating the fate of xenobiotics in the environment, a variety of degradation or environmental metabolism experiments are routinely conducted. The data generated in such experiments are evaluated by optimizing the parameters of kinetic models in a way that the model simulation fits the data. No comparison of the main software tools currently in use has been published to date. This article shows a comparison of numerical results as well as an overall, somewhat subjective comparison based on a scoring system using a set of criteria. The scoring was separately performed for two types of uses. Uses of type I are routine evaluations involving standard kinetic models and up to three metabolites in a single compartment. Evaluations involving non-standard model components, more than three metabolites or more than a single compartment belong to use type II. For use type I, usability is most important, while the flexibility of the model definition is most important for use type II. Results:Test datasets were assembled that can be used to compare the numerical results for different software tools. These datasets can also be used to ensure that no unintended or erroneous behaviour is introduced in newer versions. In the comparison of numerical results, good agreement between the parameter estimates was observed for datasets with up to three metabolites. For the now unmaintained reference software DegKinManager/ModelMaker, and for OpenModel which is still under development, user options were identified that should be taken care of in order to obtain results that are as reliable as possible. Based on the scoring system mentioned above, the software tools gmkin, KinGUII and CAKE received the best scores for use type I. Out of the 15 software packages compared with respect to use type II, again gmkin and KinGUII were the first two, followed by the script based tool mkin, which is the technical basis for gmkin, and by OpenModel. Conclusions:Based on the evaluation using the system of criteria mentioned above and the comparison of numerical results for the suite of test datasets, the software tools gmkin, KinGUII and CAKE are recommended for use type I, and gmkin and KinGUII for use type II. For users that prefer to work with scripts instead of graphical user interfaces, mkin is recommended. For future software evaluations, it is recommended to include a measure for the total time that a typical user needs for a kinetic evaluation into the scoring scheme. It is the hope of the authors that the publication of test data, source code and overall rankings foster the evolution of useful and reliable software in the field.

Dataset Information

Systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools with clinically validated NIPT samples.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets