ArticlePloS one2025
Comparisons of performances of structural variants detection algorithms in solitary or combination strategy.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond inversions and deletions: the evolutionary and functional insights from translocations, fissions, and fusions in animal genomes.Heredity · 2026Review
- Multiplatform comparisons and annotation of structural variants highlight the utility of the T2T reference genome in human diagnostics.GigaScience · 2026Article
- SVCROWS: a user-defined tool for interpreting significant structural variants in heterogeneous datasets.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Structural variants (SVs) have been associated with changes in gene expression, which may contribute to alterations in phenotypes and disease development. However, the precise identification and characterization of SVs remain challenging. While long-read sequencing offers superior accuracy for SV detection, short-read sequencing remains essential due to practical and cost considerations, as well as the need to analyze existing short-read datasets. Numerous algorithms for short-read SV detection exist, but none are universally optimal, each having limitations for specific SV sizes and types. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of six advanced SV detection algorithms, including the commercial software DRAGEN, using the GIAB v0.6 Tier 1 benchmark and HGSVC2 cell lines. We employed both individual and combination strategies, with systematic assessments of recall, precision, and F1 scores. Our results demonstrate that the union combination approach enhanced detection capabilities, surpassing single algorithms in identifying deletions and insertions, and delivered comparable recall and F1 scores to the commercial software DRAGEN. Interestingly, expanding the number of algorithms from three to five in the combination did not enhance performance, highlighting the efficiency of a well-chosen ensemble over a larger algorithmic pool.
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.