ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Somatic likelihood tiering: an interpretable post-calling triage protocol for tumor-only whole-exome variant review.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Integrating Mutation-Derived and Expression Features from Single-Cell RNA Sequencing: Pitfalls of Standard Cross-Validation in Small-Cohort Settings.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- AI-driven neoantigen identification: a comprehensive review from somatic variant calling to T cell recognition.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- AI-driven neoantigen identification: a comprehensive review from somatic variant calling to T cell recognition.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- AI-driven neoantigen identification: a comprehensive review from somatic variant calling to T cell recognition.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- MRDsteer: quality-aware AI-driven closed-loop optimization enhances ctDNA-based minimal residual disease detection.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Tutorial for variant interrogation in tumor samples.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Synth4bench: generating synthetic data for benchmarking tumor-only somatic variant calling algorithms.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- ChoCallate: a computational pipeline for consensus germline variant calling in genomic sequencing data.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Mutect2, Strelka2, and FreeBayes for Somatic SNV Detection in Synthetic and Clinical Whole-Exome Sequencing Data.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Computational methods and data resources for predicting tumor neoantigens.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
By identifying somatic mutations, whole-exome sequencing (WES) has become a technology of choice for the diagnosis and guiding treatment decisions in many cancers. Despite advances in the field of somatic variant detection and the emergence of sophisticated tools incorporating machine learning, accurately identifying somatic variants remains challenging. Each new somatic variant caller is often accompanied by claims of superior performance compared to predecessors. Furthermore, most comparative studies focus on a limited set of tools and reference datasets, leading to inconsistent results and making it difficult for laboratories to select the optimal solution. Our study comprehensively evaluated 20 somatic variant callers across four reference WES datasets. We subsequently assessed the performance of ensemble approaches by exploring all possible combinations of these callers, generating 8178 and 1013 combinations for single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and indels, respectively, with varying voting thresholds. Our analysis identified five high-performing individual somatic variant callers: Muse, Mutect2, Dragen, TNScope, and NeuSomatic. For somatic SNVs, an ensemble combining LoFreq, Muse, Mutect2, SomaticSniper, Strelka, and Lancet outperformed the top-performing caller (Dragen) by >3.6% (mean F1 score = 0.927). Similarly, for somatic indels, an ensemble of Mutect2, Strelka, Varscan2, and Pindel outperformed the best individual caller (Neusomatic) by >3.5% (mean F1 score = 0.867). By considering the computational costs of each combination, we were able to identify an optimal solution involving four somatic variant callers, Muse, Mutect2, and Strelka for the SNVs and Mutect2, Strelka, and Varscan2 for the indels, enabling accurate and cost-effective somatic variant detection in whole exome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.