ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative study of tools for copy number variation detection using next-generation sequencing data.
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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Determination of copy number variations and affected gene networks in breast cancer.Biomedical reports · 2026Article
- Clinical Phenotype Comparison in Polish Patient Cohorts with and Without Molecular Diagnosis of Dystonia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A convolutional attention model classifies copy number variants from whole exome sequencing.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- SSLCNV: A Semi-supervised Learning Framework for Accurate Copy Number Variation Detection.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2025Article
- An improved GPT2-based joint event extraction method with position expansion and knowledge augmentation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Research on the similarity calculation of short text in the terminology domain based on siamese BERT model.Scientific reports · 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
Abstract
Copy number variation (CNV) plays an important role in disease susceptibility as a type of intermediate-scale structural variation (SV). Accurate CNV detection is crucial for understanding human genetic diversity, elucidating disease mechanisms, and advancing cancer genomics. A variety of CNV detection tools based on short sequencing reads from next-generation sequencing (NGS) have been developed. Although many researchers have conducted extensive comparisons of the detection performance of various tools, these studies have not fully considered the comprehensive impact of factors such as variant length, sequencing depth, tumor purity, and CNV types on tools performance. Therefore, we selected 12 widely used and representative detection tools to comprehensively compare their performance on both simulated and real data. For the simulated data, we compared their performance across six variant types under 36 configurations, including three variant lengths, four sequencing depths, and three tumor purities. For the real data, we used the overlapping density score (ODS) to evaluate the performance of the 12 detection tools. Additionally, we compared their time and space complexities. In this study, we analyzed the impact of each configuration on the tools and recommended the most suitable detection tools for each scenario. This study provides important guidance for researchers in selecting the appropriate variant detection tools for complex situations.
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.