ArticlePloS one2026
Variant calling in genomics: A comparative performance analysis and decision guide.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- A Practical Workflow for Correcting Kit-Specific Effects in Whole-Exome Sequencing Data.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Rare Diseases: Workflow-Integrated Precision Kidney Care.Clinics and practice · 2026Review
- ChoCallate: a computational pipeline for consensus germline variant calling in genomic sequencing data.PeerJ · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accurate detection of genetic variants is critical for advancing genomics research and precision medicine. However, this task remains challenging due to pervasive sequencing errors and complex genomic regions. The choice of variant calling software significantly influences results, creating a need for clear, evidence-based guidance. This study aims to provide a performance evaluation and a clear, evidence-based guide for selecting variant callers by benchmarking seven widely used tools, GATK, FreeBayes, DeepVariant, Samtools, Strelka2, Octopus, and Varscan2, highlighting their algorithmic trade-offs. The well-characterized NA12878 genome from the Genome in a Bottle consortium was analyzed. High-coverage whole-genome sequencing data was processed with each variant caller, and the resulting variant calling files were benchmarked against a gold-standard reference. Performance was assessed using precision, recall, and F1-score on a chromosome 20 subset and on full whole-genome data. The analysis revealed that DeepVariant's deep learning approach achieved the highest precision (0.7869) and F1-score (0.8754) on chromosome 20. For whole-genome analysis, Strelka2 excelled in precision (0.8326), while Octopus demonstrated superior recall (0.9838). FreeBayes exhibited high sensitivity but lower precision, underscoring a key trade-off. There is no universally superior variant caller; the optimal choice depends on the specific research objectives, whether prioritizing precision, recall, or computational efficiency. This study serves as a crucial evidence-based resource for researchers and clinicians, enabling informed tool selection.
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.