Multisite verification of the accuracy of a multi-gene next generation sequencing panel for detection of mutations and copy number alterations in solid tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular variants including single nucleotide variants (SNVs), copy number variants (CNVs) and fusions can be detected in the clinical setting using deep targeted sequencing. These assays support low limits of detection using little genomic input material. They are gaining in popularity in clinical laboratories, where sample volumes are limited, and low variant allele fractions may be present. However, data on reproducibility between laboratories is limited. Using a ring study, we evaluated the performance of 7 Ontario laboratories using targeted sequencing panels. All laboratories analysed a series of control and clinical samples for SNVs/CNVs and gene fusions. High concordance was observed across laboratories for measured CNVs and SNVs. Over 97% of SNV calls in clinical samples were detected by all laboratories. Whilst only a single CNV was detected in the clinical samples tested, all laboratories were able to reproducibly report both the variant and copy number. Concordance for information derived from RNA was lower than observed for DNA, due largely to decreased quality metrics associated with the RNA components of the assay, suggesting that the RNA portions of comprehensive NGS assays may be more vulnerable to variations in approach and workflow. Overall the results of this study support the use of the OFA for targeted sequencing for testing of clinical samples and suggest specific internal quality metrics that can be reliable indicators of assay failure. While we believe this evidence can be interpreted to support deep targeted sequencing in general, additional studies should be performed to confirm this.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".