ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2020
Problems in variation interpretation guidelines and in their implementation in computational tools.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A novel phenotype-guided genome analysis pipeline for variant discovery.NPJ genomic medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Choosing Variant Interpretation Tools for Clinical Applications: Context Matters.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Systematic errors in annotations of truncations, loss-of-function and synonymous variants.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Editorial: Identification of phenotypically important genomic variants.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Calibration of computational tools for missense variant pathogenicity classification and ClinGen recommendations for PP3/BP4 criteria.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Individual Genetic Heterogeneity.Genes · 2022Review
- Revealing modifier variations characterizations for elucidating the genetic basis of human phenotypic variations.Human genetics · 2022Article
- PON-All: Amino Acid Substitution Tolerance Predictor for All Organisms.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
- Review
- Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype - Many Genes.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2021Review
- Problems in variation interpretation guidelines and in their implementation in computational tools.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundACMG/AMP and AMP/ASCO/CAP have released guidelines for variation interpretation, and ESHG for diagnostic sequencing. These guidelines contain recommendations including the use of computational prediction methods. The guidelines per se and the way they are implemented cause some problems.
methodsLogical reasoning based on domain knowledge.
resultsAccording to the guidelines, several methods have to be used and they have to agree. This means that the methods with the poorest performance overrule the better ones. The choice of the prediction method(s) should be made by experts based on systematic benchmarking studies reporting all the relevant performance measures. Currently variation interpretation methods have been applied mainly to amino acid substitutions and splice site variants; however, predictors for some other types of variations are available and there will be tools for new application areas in the near future. Common problems in prediction method usage are discussed. The number of features used for method training or the number of variation types predicted by a tool are not indicators of method performance. Many published gene, protein or disease-specific benchmark studies suffer from too small dataset rendering the results useless. In the case of binary predictors, equal number of positive and negative cases is beneficial for training, the imbalance has to be corrected for performance assessment. Predictors cannot be better than the data they are based on and used for training and testing. Minor allele frequency (MAF) can help to detect likely benign cases, but the recommended MAF threshold is apparently too high. The fact that many rare variants are disease-causing or -related does not mean that rare variants in general would be harmful. How large a portion of the tested variants a tool can predict (coverage) is not a quality measure.
conclusionMethods used for variation interpretation have to be carefully selected. It should be possible to use only one predictor, with proven good performance or a limited number of complementary predictors with state-of-the-art performance. Bear in mind that diseases and pathogenicity have a continuum and variants are not dichotomic i.e. either pathogenic or benign, either.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.