Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41642910›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Variant calling in genomics: A comparative performance analysis and decision guide.

Vera Pinto, Lisete Sousa, Carina Silva

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vera PintoDepartamento de Ciências Matemáticas (DCM)/Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0724-5612
Lisete SousaDepartamento de Ciências Matemáticas (DCM)/Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2114-720X
Carina SilvaCentro de Estatística e Aplicações (CEAUL)/Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic VariationGenomicsSoftwareAlgorithmsGenome, HumanHumansWhole Genome Sequencing

Identifiers

PMID41642910
PMCPMC12875585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.