ArticleHuman genetics2025
Predicting the impact of rare variants on RNA splicing in CAGI6.
Article in Human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minigene-based characterization and classification of splice-associated variants in succinate dehydrogenase B.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Whole Genome Sequencing of Discordant Monozygotic Twins Reveals Regulatory Variants Associated With Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefts.Human mutation · 2026Article
- A deep dive into statistical modeling of RNA splicing QTLs reveals variants that explain neurodegenerative disease.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- RNA-based diagnostic studies in genetics: Review and guidance from a multidisciplinary French network.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- Combining full-length gene assay and SpliceAI to interpret the splicing impact of all possible SPINK1 coding variants.Human genomics · 2024Article
- Prenatal detection of novel compound heterozygous variants of theFrontiers in genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 16 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Variants which disrupt splicing are a frequent cause of rare disease that have been under-ascertained clinically. Accurate and efficient methods to predict a variant's impact on splicing are needed to interpret the growing number of variants of unknown significance (VUS) identified by exome and genome sequencing. Here, we present the results of the CAGI6 Splicing VUS challenge, which invited predictions of the splicing impact of 56 variants ascertained clinically and functionally validated to determine splicing impact. The performance of 12 prediction methods, along with SpliceAI and CADD, was compared on the 56 functionally validated variants. The maximum accuracy achieved was 82% from two different approaches, one weighting SpliceAI scores by minor allele frequency, and one applying the recently published Splicing Prediction Pipeline (SPiP). SPiP performed optimally in terms of sensitivity, while an ensemble method combining multiple prediction tools and information from databases exceeded all others for specificity. Several challenge methods equalled or exceeded the performance of SpliceAI, with ultimate choice of prediction method likely to depend on experimental or clinical aims. One quarter of the variants were incorrectly predicted by at least 50% of the methods, highlighting the need for further improvements to splicing prediction methods for successful clinical application.
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.