You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The above means that the ratio would be 0.702 for 73 high/good qual reads and 104 low/bad qual reads (73/104=0.7019....). On the other hand, if there are no low/bad qual reads (i.e. locnt == 0, this can be achieved with -q 0), the formula becomes hicnt / 0.5 which is effectively hicnt * 2. So in the example numbers mentioned above we'd have 73 + 104 = 177 high/good qual reads (i.e. the 104 became 'good' now) and thus a ratio of 177 * 2 = 354.0! The ratio will be different for all variants having different numbers of reads (on that position). Conceptually, the formula could be
Hi,
the docs say
I don't understand the
0.5
in the formula and it seems to me this is not consistent with the actual implementation:The above means that the ratio would be 0.702 for 73 high/good qual reads and 104 low/bad qual reads (
73/104=0.7019....
). On the other hand, if there are no low/bad qual reads (i.e.locnt == 0
, this can be achieved with-q 0
), the formula becomeshicnt / 0.5
which is effectivelyhicnt * 2
. So in the example numbers mentioned above we'd have 73 + 104 = 177 high/good qual reads (i.e. the 104 became 'good' now) and thus a ratio of 177 * 2 = 354.0! The ratio will be different for all variants having different numbers of reads (on that position). Conceptually, the formula could beI'm not saying this is how it should be but this would be how I understand the result. In any case, I guess the docs could be improved.
(Note that the implementation is present in
createInsertion()
as well ascreateVariant()
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: