Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39658089›Full record

ArticleLife science alliance2025

Systematic assessment of structural variant annotation tools for genomic interpretation.

Xuanshi Liu, Lei Gu, Chanjuan Hao, Wenjian Xu, Fei Leng, Peng Zhang, Wei Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life science alliance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Xuanshi LiuBeijing Key Laboratory for Genetics of Birth Defects, Beijing Pediatric Research Institute; MOE Key Laboratory of Major Diseases in Children; Genetics and Birth Defects Control Center, National Center for Children's Health; Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8019-0291
Lei GuEpigenetics Laboratory, Max-Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Cardiopulmonary Institute, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
Chanjuan HaoBeijing Key Laboratory for Genetics of Birth Defects, Beijing Pediatric Research Institute; MOE Key Laboratory of Major Diseases in Children; Genetics and Birth Defects Control Center, National Center for Children's Health; Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wenjian XuBeijing Key Laboratory for Genetics of Birth Defects, Beijing Pediatric Research Institute; MOE Key Laboratory of Major Diseases in Children; Genetics and Birth Defects Control Center, National Center for Children's Health; Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Fei LengBeijing Key Laboratory for Genetics of Birth Defects, Beijing Pediatric Research Institute; MOE Key Laboratory of Major Diseases in Children; Genetics and Birth Defects Control Center, National Center for Children's Health; Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Peng ZhangBeijing Key Laboratory for Genetics of Birth Defects, Beijing Pediatric Research Institute; MOE Key Laboratory of Major Diseases in Children; Genetics and Birth Defects Control Center, National Center for Children's Health; Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wei LiBeijing Key Laboratory for Genetics of Birth Defects, Beijing Pediatric Research Institute; MOE Key Laboratory of Major Diseases in Children; Genetics and Birth Defects Control Center, National Center for Children's Health; Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China liwei@bch.com.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-0248-5510

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Structural variants (SVs) over 50 base pairs play a significant role in phenotypic diversity and are associated with various diseases, but their analysis is complex and resource-intensive. Numerous computational tools have been developed for SV prioritization, yet their effectiveness in biomedicine remains unclear. Here we benchmarked eight widely used SV prioritization tools, categorized into knowledge-driven (AnnotSV, ClassifyCNV) and data-driven (CADD-SV, dbCNV, StrVCTVRE, SVScore, TADA, XCNV) groups in accordance with the ACMG guidelines. We assessed their accuracy, robustness, and usability across diverse genomic contexts, biological mechanisms and computational efficiency using seven carefully curated independent datasets. Our results revealed that both groups of methods exhibit comparable effectiveness in predicting SV pathogenicity, although performance varies among tools, emphasizing the importance of selecting the appropriate tool based on specific research purposes. Furthermore, we pinpointed the potential improvement of expanding these tools for future applications. Our benchmarking framework provides a crucial evaluation method for SV analysis tools, offering practical guidance for biomedical research and facilitating the advancement of better genomic research tools.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGenomicsMolecular Sequence AnnotationSoftwareBenchmarkingDatabases, GeneticGenetic VariationGenome, HumanGenomic Structural VariationHumans

Identifiers

PMID39658089
PMCPMC11632063

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.