ArticleScientific reports2025
Benchmarking of variant calling software for whole-exome sequencing using gold standard datasets.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Article
- Tutorial for variant interrogation in tumor samples.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- A simplified hybrid capture approach retains high specificity and enables PCR-free workflow.BMC genomics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate variant calling from whole-exome sequencing (WES) data is vital for understanding genetic diseases. Recently, commercial variant calling software have emerged that do not require bioinformatics or programming expertise, hence enabling independent analysis of WES data by smaller laboratories and clinics and circumventing the need for dedicated and expensive computers and bioinformatics staff. This study benchmarks four non-programming variant calling software namely, Illumina BaseSpace Sequence Hub (Illumina), CLC Genomics Workbench (CLC), Partek Flow, and Varsome Clinical, for the variant calling of three Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) whole-exome sequencing datasets (HG001, HG002 and HG003). Following alignment of sequence reads to the human reference genome GRCh38, variants were compared against high-confidence regions from GIAB datasets and assessed using the Variant Calling Assessment Tool (VCAT). Illumina's DRAGEN Enrichment achieved the highest precision and recall scores for single nucleotide variant (SNV) and insertions/deletion (indel) calling at over 99% for SNVs and 96% for indels while Partek Flow using unionised variant calls from Freebayes and Samtools had the lowest indel calling performance. Illumina had the highest true positives (TP) variant counts for all samples and all four software shared 98-99% similarity of TP variants. Run times were shortest for CLC and Illumina ranging from 6 to 25 min and 29 to 36 min respectively, while Partek Flow took the longest (3.6 to 29.7 h). This study provides information for clinicians and biologists without programming expertise in their selection of software for variant analysis that balance accuracy, sensitivity, and runtime.
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.