ArticleScientific reports2026
A convolutional attention model classifies copy number variants from whole exome sequencing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Copy number variants are important biomarkers in genetic disease and cancer, yet whole-exome CNV callers often rely on read-depth heuristics that capture limited positional or chromosomal context and generalize poorly across platforms. We present a dual-input convolutional neural network with attention that ingests normalized read depth, genomic coordinates, and chromosome identity. The model was pretrained on ECOLE-labeled 1000 Genomes data and fine-tuned on seven expert-annotated samples. On a held-out test set, the method achieved macro F1 = 0.83 and macro PR-AUC = 0.93. In additional contextual analyses reported in the Supplementary Material, CNN-Att exhibits a sensitivity-precision trade-off consistent with established WES CNV callers. Cross-platform evaluations on HiSeq 4000, NovaSeq 6000, MGISEQ 2000, and BGISEQ 500 yielded overall F1 up to 0.96. Fine-tuning increased deletion and duplication recall at the cost of a higher false positive rate, reflecting an explicit trade-off between sensitivity and precision. The architecture masks padded depth tokens and uses attention to highlight weak depth signals that are characteristic of small or noisy events. These results indicate strong sensitivity and robust performance across sequencing technologies, supporting use in clinical triage, multi-site genomics, and large-scale screening.
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.