Performance comparison: Numbers of true positive and false positive, precision, and recall of SNVs/indels for the two pipelines.</p
Comparison of performance obtained by our approach with other state-of-the-art algorithms.</p
<p>(A) Different pipelines show different sensitivity and specificity. Varying DoC and VAF threshold...
<p>QUAL: quality score for SNVs and indels. DP: read depth. Definition of Tiers One and Two is provi...
Performance comparison: Numbers of true positive and false positive, precision, and recall of SNVs/i...
BWA-MEM2+Dragen-GATK reproducibility performance comparison: Numbers of true positive and false posi...
Comparison of accuracy for different approaches, where small value indicates good performance and bo...
<p>Performance Comparison with Baseline Components (Precision, Recall, F-measure).</p
<p>Performance comparison of standard ALM results and 10-fold cross-validated (CV) ALM results.</p
<p>Comparison of the average precision rates, recall rates and F1 values for the different classific...
<p>The symbol “1”, “−”, or “0” means that the proposed scheme statistically (with 95% confidence) be...
<p>Performance comparison of the best DCBS and TTB systems with the different feature sets.</p
<p>A comparison between our method and PRINCE. We can see that our method gives a high precision as ...
Performance metrics (cumulative false negative and true positive distributions and recall values) of...
<p>Comparison of NN model performance (with retrospective validation) vs number of features.</p
<p>Summary of the comparison. Boldface indicates significantly better performance than the other met...
Comparison of performance obtained by our approach with other state-of-the-art algorithms.</p
<p>(A) Different pipelines show different sensitivity and specificity. Varying DoC and VAF threshold...
<p>QUAL: quality score for SNVs and indels. DP: read depth. Definition of Tiers One and Two is provi...
Performance comparison: Numbers of true positive and false positive, precision, and recall of SNVs/i...
BWA-MEM2+Dragen-GATK reproducibility performance comparison: Numbers of true positive and false posi...
Comparison of accuracy for different approaches, where small value indicates good performance and bo...
<p>Performance Comparison with Baseline Components (Precision, Recall, F-measure).</p
<p>Performance comparison of standard ALM results and 10-fold cross-validated (CV) ALM results.</p
<p>Comparison of the average precision rates, recall rates and F1 values for the different classific...
<p>The symbol “1”, “−”, or “0” means that the proposed scheme statistically (with 95% confidence) be...
<p>Performance comparison of the best DCBS and TTB systems with the different feature sets.</p
<p>A comparison between our method and PRINCE. We can see that our method gives a high precision as ...
Performance metrics (cumulative false negative and true positive distributions and recall values) of...
<p>Comparison of NN model performance (with retrospective validation) vs number of features.</p
<p>Summary of the comparison. Boldface indicates significantly better performance than the other met...
Comparison of performance obtained by our approach with other state-of-the-art algorithms.</p
<p>(A) Different pipelines show different sensitivity and specificity. Varying DoC and VAF threshold...
<p>QUAL: quality score for SNVs and indels. DP: read depth. Definition of Tiers One and Two is provi...
DOI
Add to ORKG