Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Place of concordance-discordance model in evaluating NGS performance.

Human Heredity 2024 March 17
INTRODUCTION: Ideally, evaluating NGS performance requires a gold standard; in its absence, concordance between replicates is often used as substitute standard. However, the appropriateness of the concordance-discordance criterion has been rarely evaluated. This study analyzes the relationship between the probability of discordance and the probability of error under different conditions.

METHODS: This study used a conditional probability approach under conditional dependence then conditional independence between two sequencing results and compares the probabilities of discordance and error in different theoretical conditions of sensitivity, specificity, and correlation between replicates, then on real results of sequencing genome NA12878. The study examines also covariate effects on discordance and error using generalized additive models with smooth functions.

RESULTS: With 99% sensitivity and 99.9% specificity under conditional independence, the probability of error for a positive concordant pair of calls is 0.1%. With additional hypotheses of 0.1% prevalence and 0.9 correlation between replicates, the probability of error for a positive concordant pair is 47.4%. With real data, the estimated sensitivity, specificity, and correlation between tests for variants are around 98.98%, 99.996%, and 93%, respectively, and the error rate for positive concordant calls approximates 2.5%. In covariate effect analyses, the effects' functional form are close between discordance and error models, though the parts of deviance explained by the covariates differ between discordance and error models.

CONCLUSION: With conditional independence of two sequencing results, the concordance-discordance criterion seems acceptable as substitute standard. However, with high correlation, the criterion becomes questionable because a high percentage of false concordant results appears among concordant results.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app