Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25918519›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2015

Whole-genome CNV analysis: advances in computational approaches.

Mehdi Pirooznia, Fernando S Goes, Peter P Zandi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. CNV-Finder: Streamlining Copy Number Variation Discovery.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Benchmarking strategies for CNV calling from whole genome bisulfite data in humans.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mehdi PiroozniaMood Disorders Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA.
Fernando S GoesMood Disorders Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA.
Peter P ZandiMood Disorders Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA ; Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore, MD, USA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accumulating evidence indicates that DNA copy number variation (CNV) is likely to make a significant contribution to human diversity and also play an important role in disease susceptibility. Recent advances in genome sequencing technologies have enabled the characterization of a variety of genomic features, including CNVs. This has led to the development of several bioinformatics approaches to detect CNVs from next-generation sequencing data. Here, we review recent advances in CNV detection from whole genome sequencing. We discuss the informatics approaches and current computational tools that have been developed as well as their strengths and limitations. This review will assist researchers and analysts in choosing the most suitable tools for CNV analysis as well as provide suggestions for new directions in future development.

Indexed as

CNVscomputational modelingcopy number variationnext generation sequencingstructural variation (SV)whole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID25918519
PMCPMC4394692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.