A systematic assessment of machine learning for structural variant filtering

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-ND-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Background Accurate discrimination of true structural variants (SVs) from artifacts in long-read sequencing data remains a critical bottleneck. Numerous machine learning solutions have been proposed, ranging from classical models using engineered features to advanced deep learning and foundation model interpretability methods. However, a systematic comparison of their performance, efficiency, and practical utility is lacking. Results We conducted a comprehensive benchmark of five machine learning paradigms for SV filtering using standardized Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) data for samples HG002 and HG005. We evaluated classical Random Forest classifiers on 15 genomic features, computer vision models (ResNet/VICReg), diffusion-based anomaly detection, sparse autoencoders (SAEs) on the Evo2-7B foundation model, and multimodal ensembles. A simple Random Forest on interpretable features achieved a peak F1-score of 95.7%, effectively matching all more complex models (ResNet50: 95.9%, Diffusion: 95.8%). This study represents the first application of diffusion-based anomaly detection and sparse autoencoders to structural variant analysis; while diffusion models learned highly discriminative, disentangled representations and SAEs uncovered biologically interpretable features (including atoms that were specific for ALU deletions, chromosome X variants and insertion events), they did not significantly surpass this classification ceiling. Ensemble methods offered no performance benefit but may have future potential given the orthogonality of vision-based and linear features. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that for the established task of germline SV filtering, simpler, interpretable models provide an optimal balance of accuracy, speed, and transparency. This benchmark establishes a pragmatic framework for method selection and argues that increased model complexity must be justified by clear, unmet biological needs rather than marginal predictive gains.
Full text 2,087 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 3 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Accurate discrimination of true structural variants (SVs) from artifacts in long-read sequencing data remains a critical bottleneck. Numerous machine learning solutions have been proposed, ranging from classical models using engineered features to advanced deep learning and foundation model interpretability methods. However, a systematic comparison of their performance, efficiency, and practical utility is lacking.

Results

We conducted a comprehensive benchmark of five machine learning paradigms for SV filtering using standardized Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) data for samples HG002 and HG005. We evaluated classical Random Forest classifiers on 15 genomic features, computer vision models (ResNet/VICReg), diffusion-based anomaly detection, sparse autoencoders (SAEs) on the Evo2-7B foundation model, and multimodal ensembles. A simple Random Forest on interpretable features achieved a peak F1-score of 95.7%, effectively matching all more complex models (ResNet50: 95.9%, Diffusion: 95.8%). This study represents the first application of diffusion-based anomaly detection and sparse autoencoders to structural variant analysis; while diffusion models learned highly discriminative, disentangled representations and SAEs uncovered biologically interpretable features (including atoms that were specific for ALU deletions, chromosome X variants and insertion events), they did not significantly surpass this classification ceiling. Ensemble methods offered no performance benefit but may have future potential given the orthogonality of vision-based and linear features.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that for the established task of germline SV filtering, simpler, interpretable models provide an optimal balance of accuracy, speed, and transparency. This benchmark establishes a pragmatic framework for method selection and argues that increased model complexity must be justified by clear, unmet biological needs rather than marginal predictive gains. Competing Interest Statement FJS receives research support from PacBio, Oxford Nanopore and Illumina.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-27T02:00:06.600101+00:00
License: CC-BY-ND-4.0