ArticleGenome medicine2026
Pangenomes aid accurate detection of large insertions and deletions from targeted sequencing: the case of cardiomyopathies.
Article in Genome medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGene panels represent a widely used strategy for genetic testing in a vast range of Mendelian disorders. While this approach aids reliable bioinformatic detection of short coding variants, it often fails to detect many larger variants. Recent studies have recommended the adoption of pangenome references (as opposed to linear reference genomes like GRCh38) to augment detection of large variants from targeted sequencing, potentially providing diagnostic laboratories with the possibility to streamline diagnostic work-ups and reduce costs.
methodsHere, we analyze 1969 cardiomyopathy cases and 1805 controls sequenced with the Illumina Trusight Cardio panel using a pangenome-based workflow (GRAF) and five conventional orthogonal methodologies (GATK HaplotypeCaller, GATK-gCNV, ExomeDepth, Manta and Lumpy-SV) to detect variants ≥ 20 bp in size.
resultsFollowing lab-based variant validation by means of PCR and Sanger sequencing, we show that GRAF conjugates higher precision and recall (F1 score 0.86) compared with other methods (F1 0-0.57) in detecting potentially pathogenic variants ≥ 20 bp from short-read panel data. Results were complemented by a comparison of the tools' performance in detecting ground truth variants on reference sample HG002 from Genome In A Bottle, which confirmed GRAF to outperform other tools also on exome sequencing (F1 0.97 vs. 0-0.94). Notably, in the HG002 benchmark dataset, GRAF also showed slightly improved performance compared to GATK HaplotypeCaller in the identification of small variants (1-19 bp; F1 0.975 vs. 0.968).
conclusionsOur results indicate that pangenome-based workflows aid improved detection of large variants from targeted sequencing data in the clinical context and suggest that they may contribute to more unified variant detection frameworks for all-size genetic variants in the future.
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.