VisCap: inference and visualization of germ-line copy-number variants from targeted clinical sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and validate VisCap, a software program targeted to clinical laboratories for inference and visualization of germ-line copy-number variants (CNVs) from targeted next-generation sequencing data. METHODS: VisCap calculates the fraction of overall sequence coverage assigned to genomic intervals and computes log2 ratios of these values to the median of reference samples profiled using the same test configuration. Candidate CNVs are called when log2 ratios exceed user-defined thresholds. RESULTS: We optimized VisCap using 14 cases with known CNVs, followed by prospective analysis of 1,104 cases referred for diagnostic DNA sequencing. To verify calls in the prospective cohort, we used droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to confirm 10/27 candidate CNVs and 72/72 copy-neutral genomic regions scored by VisCap. We also used a genome-wide bead array to confirm the absence of CNV calls across panels applied to 10 cases. To improve specificity, we instituted a visual scoring system that enabled experienced reviewers to differentiate true-positive from false-positive calls with minimal impact on laboratory workflow. CONCLUSIONS: VisCap is a sensitive method for inferring CNVs from targeted sequence data from targeted gene panels. Visual scoring of data underlying CNV calls is a critical step to reduce false-positive calls for follow-up testing.Genet Med 18 7, 712-719.Genetics in Medicine (2016); 18 7, 712-719. doi:10.1038/gim.2015.156.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".