Detection of germline CNVs from gene panel data: benchmarking the state of the art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Germline copy number variants (CNVs) play a significant role in hereditary diseases. However, the accurate detection of CNVs from targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) gene panel data remains a challenging task. Several tools for calling CNVs within this context have been published to date, but the available benchmarks suffer from limitations, including testing on simulated data, testing on small datasets, and testing a small subset of published tools. In this work, we conducted a comprehensive benchmarking of 12 tools (Atlas-CNV, ClearCNV, ClinCNV, CNVkit, Cobalt, CODEX2, CoNVaDING, DECoN, ExomeDepth, GATK-gCNV, panelcn.MOPS, VisCap) on four validated gene panel datasets using their default parameters. We also assessed the impact of modifying 107 tool parameters and identified 13 parameter values that we suggest using to improve the tool F1 score. A total of 66 tool pair combinations were also evaluated to produce better meta-callers. Furthermore, we developed CNVbenchmarker2, a framework to help users perform their own evaluations. Our results indicated that in terms of F1 score, ClinCNV and GATK-gCNV were the best CNV callers. Regarding sensitivity, GATK-gCNV also exhibited particularly high performance. The results presented here provide an evaluation of the current state of the art in germline CNV detection from gene panel data and can be used as a reference resource when using any of the tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".