ArticleBioinformatics advances2025
Benchmarking of germline copy number variant callers from whole genome sequencing data for clinical applications.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2025. 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.
- Diagnostic pathways in developmental disorders: a decade-apart comparison of two multicenter cohorts (2012-2022).European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Sequencing approaches in hereditary cancer testing: strengths, limitations and future directions.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Computational strategies for copy number variation detection, disease association, and beyond.Genome biology · 2026Review
- The importance and clinical utility of reanalysis of exome and genome sequencing data.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2026Article
- Beyond chromatin accessibility: bulk ATAC-seq as an integrative assay to portray genomes and epigenomes.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Berry-derived gold nanoparticles induce integrated ROS-mediated apoptosis, immune modulation, and transcriptomic remodeling in 4T1 triple-negative cancer cells.Cell death discovery · 2026Article
- Expanding the Genetic Landscape ofNeurology. Genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparative genomic analysis of multiple mammary tumors from a single dog: whole-genome sequencing study.Irish veterinary journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly preferred for clinical applications due to its comprehensive coverage, effectiveness in detecting copy number variants (CNVs), and declining costs. However, systematic evaluations of WGS CNV callers tailored to germline clinical testing-where high sensitivity and confirmation of reported CNVs are essential-remain necessary. Clinical reporting typically emphasizes CNVs affecting coding regions over precise breakpoint detection. This study benchmarks several short-read WGS CNV detection tools using reference cell lines to inform their clinical use. Results: While tools vary in sensitivity (7%-83%) and precision (1%-76%), few meet the sensitivity needed for clinical testing. Callers generally perform better for deletions (up to 88% sensitivity) than duplications (up to 47% sensitivity), with poor detection of duplications under 5 kb. Notably, for CNVs in genes commonly included in clinical panels, significantly improved sensitivity and precision were observed when benchmarking against 25 cell lines with known CNVs. DRAGEN v4.2 high-sensitivity CNV calls, post-processed with custom filters, achieved 100% sensitivity and 77% precision on the optimized gene panel after excluding recurring artifacts. This level of performance may support clinical use with orthogonal confirmation of reportable CNVs, pending validation on laboratory-specific samples. Availability and implementation: The data underlying this article are available in the European Nucleo-tide Archive under project accession PRJEB87628.
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.