Table 1.
Sensitivity of CANOES and XHMM to PennCNV calls
| Number of exome targets | Number of PennCNV calls | CANOES sensitivity | XHMM sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Deletions: this table shows the proportion of high-quality PennCNV deletion calls overlapping from 1 to 10 exome targets that were detected by CANOES and XHMM | |||
| 1 | 44 | 32 (73%) | 29 (66%) |
| 2 | 37 | 28 (76%) | 29 (78%) |
| 3 | 34 | 28 (82%) | 27 (79%) |
| 4 | 31 | 26 (84%) | 25 (81%) |
| 5 | 26 | 22 (85%) | 21 (81%) |
| 6 | 25 | 22 (88%) | 21 (84%) |
| 7 | 22 | 19 (86%) | 18 (82%) |
| 8 | 22 | 19 (86%) | 18 (82%) |
| 9 | 20 | 18 (90%) | 17 (85%) |
| 10 | 18 | 16 (89%) | 16 (89%) |
| (b) Duplications: this table shows the proportion of high-quality PennCNV duplication calls overlapping from 1 to 10 exome targets that were detected by CANOES and XHMM | |||
| 1 | 130 | 97 (75%) | 100 (77%) |
| 2 | 111 | 92 (83%) | 94 (85%) |
| 3 | 106 | 88 (83%) | 90 (85%) |
| 4 | 100 | 85 (85%) | 87 (87%) |
| 5 | 92 | 79 (86%) | 81 (88%) |
| 6 | 87 | 75 (86%) | 77 (89%) |
| 7 | 81 | 69 (85%) | 71 (88%) |
| 8 | 76 | 64 (84%) | 66 (87%) |
| 9 | 74 | 62 (84%) | 64 (86%) |
| 10 | 69 | 58 (84%) | 60 (87%) |