Truvari bench filtered SV counts #263
-
Hi all, For example, for a Sniffles2 dataset I use --passonly which accounts for 2735 filtered SVs, but Truvari filters 2748, and 2749 seem to be filtered for the final statistics (call_cnt): Parameters:
Here are example Truvari reported counts:
Thank you! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 6 comments 5 replies
-
The logs do not have information about why variants were filtered. You'd need to make a custom script that replicates the filtering code around here and have your own counter. There does appear to be a variant that goes missing since |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Okay I can try that, thank you. I did not filter by bed file, and here are the VCFs I used: Base: Comp: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I actually used the following sizemax value for the posted result:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Okay, so there's a bunch of running notes pasted below of what I looked for. But the main points are:
Update: Thinking about it, I think the 1 dropped variant was the BND with a size (somehow) above Begin Notes:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Okay I was using v3.5.0 but I updated to the latest version and the issue seems resolved now thank you! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
You sure? unzip truvari-bnd.zip
bgzip not_analyzed.vcf
tabix not_analyzed.vcf.gz
tabix NA12878.filtered.PASS.vcf.gz
truvari bench -b NA12878.filtered.PASS.vcf.gz -c not_analyzed.vcf.gz -o test1/ --passonly
# "comp cnt": 14, "FP": 14,
tabix whole_genome.vcf.gz
truvari bench -b NA12878.filtered.PASS.vcf.gz -c whole_genome.vcf.gz -o test2/ --sizemax 100000
truvari consistency not_analyzed.vcf.gz test2/fp.vcf.gz Result:
With the 1 not_analyzed.vcf.gz variant being the 129,371,498bp INV which was below my sizemax. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Okay, so there's a bunch of running notes pasted below of what I looked for. But the main points are:
--pctsim
is a very old (v3?) name for the parameter. So I'm going to assume you should update to the new v5.2 version I released this morning.Update: Thinking about it, I think the …