ArticleHuman genetics2025
PRP: pathogenic risk prediction for rare nonsynonymous single nucleotide variants.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- MetaXVP: an interpretable machine learning framework for deep insight into variant pathogenicity and VUS classification.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Integrated Multiomics Validation of KeyBioMed research international · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reliable prediction of pathogenic variants plays a crucial role in personalized medicine, which aims to provide accurate diagnosis and individualized treatment using genomic medicine. This study introduces PRP, a pathogenic risk prediction for rare nonsynonymous single nucleotide variants (nsSNVs), including missense, start_lost, stop_gained, and stop_lost variants. PRP was designed to provide robust performance and interpretable predictions using thirty-four features across four categories: frequency, conservation score, substitution metrics, and gene intolerance. Five machine-learning (ML) algorithms were compared to select the optimal model. Hyperparameter optimization was conducted using Optuna, and feature importance was analyzed using Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). PRP used ClinVar data for training and evaluated performance using three independent test datasets and compared it with that of twenty other prediction tools. PRP consistently outperformed state-of-the-art tools across all eight performance metrics: AUC, AUPRC, Accuracy, F1-score, MCC, Precision, Recall, and Specificity. In addition to achieving high sensitivity and high specificity without overestimating the number of pathogenic variants, PRP demonstrates robustness in predicting rare variants. The datasets and codes used for training and testing PRP, along with pre-computed scores, are available at https://github.com/DNAvigation/PRP .
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.