ArticleScientific reports2025
A novel seven-tier framework for the classification of MEFV missense variants using adaptive and rigid classifiers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Alignment of CFTR2 and CFTR-France Classifications with a Turkish Cystic Fibrosis Referral Cohort.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- MEFV variant spectrum and exploratory in silico stratification of uncommon variants in 611 individuals tested for suspected familial Mediterranean fever in the Eastern Black Sea region of Türkiye.BMC genomic data · 2026Article
- Integrated Clinical, Molecular, and Machine Learning Assessment of Familial Hypercholesterolemia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
There is a great discrepancy between the clinical categorization of MEFV gene variants and in silico tool predictions. In this study, we developed a seven-tier classification system for MEFV missense variants of unknown significance and recommended a generalized pipeline for other gene classifications. We extracted 12,017 human MEFV gene variants from the Ensembl database. After extraction, we detected 6034 missense variants. In the next step, we selected 42 in silico tools for our classification model. We determined the optimal value via the scores from three in silico tools. For the implementation of machine learning methods, we used two bagging methods and two boosting methods. After predicting known variants, we applied our model to 5507 variants of unknown significance. In the final stage, we applied the developed framework to the entire dataset to rigorously evaluate its classification performance and validate its potential clinical utility. The XGBoost model achieved the highest accuracy at 0.9882 (± 0.0295), followed by Extremely Randomized Trees (0.9835 ± 0.0335), Random Forest (0.9788 ± 0.0158), and AdaBoost (0.9671 ± 0.0815). Following the refinement of the dataset and the introduction of a novel classification and clustering methodology, the proportion of known variants increased from 6.9 to 29.4%, marking a 4.3-fold relative improvement. Furthermore, we identified two novel hotspot regions and one tolerant site, offering valuable insights into the functional structure of the pyrin protein. Rigid and adaptive classifiers offer an innovative framework for VOUS classification, integrating a grayscale interpretation system with cutting-edge in silico tools and machine learning algorithms. This approach not only improves the accuracy of MEFV gene variant classification but also identifies new hotspot regions for functional studies, paving the way for scalable applications to other genes and might contribute to advancing precision genomic medicine in the future.
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.