ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
Comprehensive evaluation of AlphaMissense predictions by evidence quantification for variants of uncertain significance.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpreting human genetic variation at atomic resolution.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Convergence of machine learning and genomics for precision oncology.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Article
- Genetic and Molecular Characterization of Treacher Collins Syndrome in Three Mexican Families.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Gene-related retinal detachment in a young Chinese cohort: ACMG/AMP applicability and VUS analysis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Classification models distinguish functional and trafficking effects of KCNQ1 variants to enhance variant interpretation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Yield on Reinterpretation of Genetic Variants in Pediatric Cardiomyopathy.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Benchmarking AlphaMissense pathogenicity predictions againstBiochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate variant classification is critical for genetic diagnosis. Variants without clear classification, known as "variants of uncertain significance" (VUS), pose a significant diagnostic challenge. This study examines AlphaMissense performance in variant classification, specifically for VUS. A systematic comparison between AlphaMissense predictions and predictions based on curated evidence according to the ACMG/AMP classification guidelines was conducted for 5845 missense variants in 59 genes associated with representative Mendelian disorders. A framework for quantifying and modeling VUS pathogenicity was used to facilitate comparison. Manual reviewing classified 5845 variants as 4085 VUS, 1576 pathogenic/likely pathogenic, and 184 benign/likely benign. Pathogenicity predictions based on AlphaMissense and ACMG guidelines were concordant for 1887 variants (1352 pathogenic, 132 benign, and 403 VUS/ambiguous). The sensitivity and specificity of AlphaMissense predictions for pathogenicity were 92% and 78%. Moreover, the quantification of VUS evidence and heatmaps weakly correlated with the AlphaMissense score. For VUS without computational evidence, incorporating AlphaMissense changed the VUS quantification for 878 variants, while 56 were reclassified as likely pathogenic. When AlphaMissense replaced existing computational evidence for all VUS, 1709 variants changed quantified criteria while 63 were reclassified as likely pathogenic. Our research suggests that the augmentation of AlphaMissense with empirical evidence may improve performance by incorporating a quantitative framework to aid in VUS classification.
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.