rewirebio.iobenchmarks
Protocol

SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)

Per-caller and retained-ensemble TP, FP, recall, false-positive rate, precision and F1 for somatic indels.

15 evaluations · 90 results

Overview

Per-caller and retained-ensemble TP, FP, recall, false-positive rate, precision and F1 for somatic indels.

Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.

15 recorded evaluations, 90 metric rows. A comparison chart has not yet been validated for these results. The table retains the individual findings and their sources.

View coverage and remaining gaps across all benchmarks

Results

Results are available, but no reviewed comparison panel is linked in this release.

All evaluations

15 evaluations · 90 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Filter evaluations

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configurationProtocol and datasetFindingEvidence and details
Configuration: DeepSomatic-WES 1.7.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.812 f1-score
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

DeepSomatic-WES on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), H32; Tools 'DeepSomatic-WES'; column 'F1'
Configuration: DeepSomatic-WES 1.7.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
10 false-positive-count
count · lower

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

DeepSomatic-WES on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), E32; Tools 'DeepSomatic-WES'; column 'FP'
Configuration: DeepSomatic-WES 1.7.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
6.64e-8 false-positive-rate
fraction · lower

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

DeepSomatic-WES on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), G32; Tools 'DeepSomatic-WES'; column 'FPR'
Configuration: DeepSomatic-WES 1.7.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.804 precision
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

DeepSomatic-WES on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), I32; Tools 'DeepSomatic-WES'; column 'PPV'
Configuration: DeepSomatic-WES 1.7.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.82 recall
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

DeepSomatic-WES on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), F32; Tools 'DeepSomatic-WES'; column 'TPR'
Configuration: DeepSomatic-WES 1.7.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
41 true-positive-count
count · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

DeepSomatic-WES on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), D32; Tools 'DeepSomatic-WES'; column 'TP'
Configuration: FreeBayes 1.3.4 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.178 f1-score
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

FreeBayes on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), H22; Tools 'FreeBayes'; column 'F1'
Configuration: FreeBayes 1.3.4 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
226 false-positive-count
count · lower

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

FreeBayes on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), E22; Tools 'FreeBayes'; column 'FP'
Configuration: FreeBayes 1.3.4 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.0000015 false-positive-rate
fraction · lower

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

FreeBayes on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), G22; Tools 'FreeBayes'; column 'FPR'
Configuration: FreeBayes 1.3.4 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.107 precision
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

FreeBayes on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), I22; Tools 'FreeBayes'; column 'PPV'
Configuration: FreeBayes 1.3.4 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.54 recall
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

FreeBayes on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), F22; Tools 'FreeBayes'; column 'TPR'
Configuration: FreeBayes 1.3.4 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
27 true-positive-count
count · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

FreeBayes on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), D22; Tools 'FreeBayes'; column 'TP'
Configuration: Lancet 1.1.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.463 f1-score
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lancet on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), H31; Tools 'Lancet'; column 'F1'
Configuration: Lancet 1.1.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
73 false-positive-count
count · lower

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lancet on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), E31; Tools 'Lancet'; column 'FP'
Configuration: Lancet 1.1.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
4.85e-7 false-positive-rate
fraction · lower

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lancet on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), G31; Tools 'Lancet'; column 'FPR'
Configuration: Lancet 1.1.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.336 precision
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lancet on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), I31; Tools 'Lancet'; column 'PPV'
Configuration: Lancet 1.1.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.74 recall
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lancet on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), F31; Tools 'Lancet'; column 'TPR'
Configuration: Lancet 1.1.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
37 true-positive-count
count · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lancet on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), D31; Tools 'Lancet'; column 'TP'
Configuration: Lofreq 2.1.5 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.327 f1-score
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lofreq on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), H23; Tools 'Lofreq'; column 'F1'
Configuration: Lofreq 2.1.5 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
155 false-positive-count
count · lower

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lofreq on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), E23; Tools 'Lofreq'; column 'FP'
Configuration: Lofreq 2.1.5 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.00000103 false-positive-rate
fraction · lower

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lofreq on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), G23; Tools 'Lofreq'; column 'FPR'
Configuration: Lofreq 2.1.5 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.205 precision
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lofreq on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), I23; Tools 'Lofreq'; column 'PPV'
Configuration: Lofreq 2.1.5 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.8 recall
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lofreq on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), F23; Tools 'Lofreq'; column 'TPR'
Configuration: Lofreq 2.1.5 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
40 true-positive-count
count · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Lofreq on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), D23; Tools 'Lofreq'; column 'TP'
Configuration: Mutect2 4.2.2.0 (Guille et al. 2025)Protocol: SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation sample, somatic indels (Guille et al. 2025 Table S7)
Dataset: SEQC2 HCC1395/HCC1395BL WES, Fudan replicate (WES_FD_T_1), high-confidence regions
0.65 f1-score
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Mutect2 on SEQC2 HCC1395 WES validation indels (Guille et al. 2025)

somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

Aggregation: Not reported

A benchmarking study of individual somatic variant callers and voting-based ensembles for whole-exome sequencing; Guille et al. 2025, Supplementary Table S7 (validation dataset) · Supplementary Table S7 (tables7_bbae697.xls, sheet 'Results'), H24; Tools 'Mutect2'; column 'F1'

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-09-8cc1db47c7f9.

Methods and evaluation design

Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations

Recorded evaluations

Each evaluation records what was tested and under which conditions.

Explore all linked results

Baseline coverage

Reference methods help show what a model adds beyond simple controls. We track a null control and a conventional method for each protocol.

0 of 2 active baseline roles have published Rewire measurements in this release. Measurements on a selected protocol do not establish coverage of an entire suite.

No execution recipe linked to this protocol. Recipe availability does not establish a completed evaluation.

Author-reported evaluations
2
External evaluations
13

Literature evidence is not a Rewire measurement. Executed but unpublished runs and private review status are not included.

Null control

Proposed control: requires review

Select a task-valid null control after reviewing inputs and metric

Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.

This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.

Conventional reference

Proposed control: requires review

Select an upstream conventional reference after reviewing the full protocol

Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.

This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.

Protocol coverage CSV (gzip) · Model evaluation matrix (gzip) · Source table (gzip) · Release and checksums (gzip)

Coverage is derived from release 2026-10-09-8cc1db47c7f9. Source citations describe the original records; they do not validate an unreviewed baseline proposal. No results have been generated by this audit.

Run instructions

No runnable recipe has been reviewed for this protocol. Dataset access, model requirements, licences and compute requirements must be checked against its sources before execution.

Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions

Evidence

Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.

Evidence table

Inspect claims, sources and review details

Trace each statement to its source and review. A context-only reference supports the record generally; it does not verify an individual field. Source checking does not reproduce an experiment.

One row per statement and cited source. Multiple citations are not independent evaluations. Shared locators are labelled explicitly.

0 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-09-8cc1db47c7f9
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance

No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.

Sources and history

Release 2026-10-09-8cc1db47c7f9 · Record review: source checked

2 source records and release historyDownload this release (gzip)
Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: somatic-20261009-protocol-guille2025-seqc2-fd-wes-indel

areas
dna-genomes
contexts
clinical_research
protocol
bwa mem alignment, callers run in paired tumour-normal mode on target regions, calls compared with the SEQC2 truth set in high-confidence regions. TPR = TP/(TP+FN), PPV = TP/(TP+FP), F1 = 2TP/(2TP+FP+FN).
version
Supplementary Table S7, Type of variant 'INDEL'
denominator
50
limitations
Single WES sample of one cell line; no replicate or interval estimates.; Small truth set: 50 indels in SEQC2 high-confidence regions, so one variant moves recall by 0.02.; Not fully independent of development: the ensembles were selected on four datasets that include another WES replicate of the same HCC1395 pair with the same truth set (Table 2 row 'SEQC2').; Post-alignment procedure for Table S7 is not stated (Tables S1-S2 compare four procedures on the development datasets).; DeepSomatic and NeuSomatic pre-trained models were built with SEQC2 HCC1395 data (Discussion paragraph 5; supplementary methods checkpoint name), so their rows are not held out.; The authors' 'best individual tool' comparison in Results 'Validation' covers the classic callers only (gains of 2.7 and 10.2 points over Mutect and Mutect2); it excludes the deep-learning callers, as the ensemble search did (Methods 'Ensemble approach').
missing metadata
metric implementation: reason: unreported; note: Comparison tool for matching calls to the truth set is not named; FPR denominator is not defined
source locator
Supplementary Table S7; Methods 'Evaluation and metrics' and 'SEQC2 dataset'
Related records

Suggest a correction