Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34911553›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2021

A benchmark of structural variation detection by long reads through a realistic simulated model.

Nicolas Dierckxsens, Tong Li, Joris R Vermeesch, Zhi Xie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. DNA Replication Errors Drive Genome-Wide Small Inverted Triplication Dynamics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. cuteHap: Haplotype-Aware Structural Variant Detection in Phased Long-Read Sequencing Data.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Nicolas DierckxsensCenter for Human Genetics, University Hospital Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. nicolasdierckxsens@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8051-6602
Tong LiState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Joris R VermeeschCenter for Human Genetics, University Hospital Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Zhi XieState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. xiezhi@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate simulations of structural variation distributions and sequencing data are crucial for the development and benchmarking of new tools. We develop Sim-it, a straightforward tool for the simulation of both structural variation and long-read data. These simulations from Sim-it reveal the strengths and weaknesses for current available structural variation callers and long-read sequencing platforms. With these findings, we develop a new method (combiSV) that can combine the results from structural variation callers into a superior call set with increased recall and precision, which is also observed for the latest structural variation benchmark set developed by the GIAB Consortium.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingComputer SimulationGenome, HumanSequence AnalysisGenomicsHumansNanopore SequencingSoftwareBenchmarkLong-read sequencingSimulated modelStructural variation

Identifiers

PMID34911553
PMCPMC8672642

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.