Paper detail

SMaSH: A Benchmarking Toolkit for Human Genome Variant Calling

Motivation: Computational methods are essential to extract actionable information from raw sequencing data, and to thus fulfill the promise of next-generation sequencing technology. Unfortunately, computational tools developed to call variants from human sequencing data disagree on many of their predictions, and current methods to evaluate accuracy and computational performance are ad-hoc and incomplete. Agreement on benchmarking variant calling methods would stimulate development of genomic processing tools and facilitate communication among researchers. Results: We propose SMaSH, a benchmarking methodology for evaluating human genome variant calling algorithms. We generate synthetic datasets, organize and interpret a wide range of existing benchmarking data for real genomes, and propose a set of accuracy and computational performance metrics for evaluating variant calling methods on this benchmarking data. Moreover, we illustrate the utility of SMaSH to evaluate the performance of some leading single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), indel, and structural variant calling algorithms. Availability: We provide free and open access online to the SMaSH toolkit, along with detailed documentation, at smash.cs.berkeley.edu.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.