ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
Extracting and calibrating evidence of variant pathogenicity from population biobank data.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A heritability-optimized method for functional prioritization of rare coding variants in complex traits.Nature genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Genomic Data Analysis: New Frontiers in Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Gene- and domain-aware calibration increases the clinical utility of variant effect predictors.Research square · 2026Article
- Interactions between rare variants in DNA repair genes and cardiometabolic risk explain more variability in cognitive function.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Language models reveal evidence gaps in variants of uncertain significance.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- From enrichment to interpretation: PS4-driven reclassification in Taiwanese inherited retinal degeneration.Human genomics · 2026Article
- Next-generation sequencing in newborn screening: Current status, challenges, and future perspectives.Pediatric investigation · 2026Review
- LDLR variant classification through activity-normalized prime editing screening.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic medicine requires a robust evidence base of variant phenotypic impacts, which remains incomplete even in extensively studied genes with monogenic disease associations. Here, we evaluated the broad potential of using population cohort data to identify evidence that can be used in variant assessment. Across 41 genes related to 18 clinically actionable monogenic phenotypes, we calculated variant-level odds ratios of disease enrichment using data from 469,803 UK Biobank participants. We found significant differences in odds ratio values between ClinVar-labeled pathogenic and benign variants in 11 phenotypes, spanning both common and rare disorders. To facilitate clinical translation, we calibrated the strength of evidence provided by variant-level odds ratios to align with American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) interpretation guidelines (PS4 criterion) and found that odds ratios may reach "moderate," "strong," or "very strong" evidence, varying by phenotype and gene. Overall, we found that 2.6% (N = 12,350) of participants harbor a rare variant of uncertain significance (VUS) with at least moderate evidence of pathogenicity-an indication of potentially unrecognized disease risk. Finally, by incorporating computational and functional data alongside population-based odds ratios, we identified variants that met the criteria for clinical reclassification. Notably, using this approach, we identified that 12.4% of rare VUSs in LDLR seen in participants meet diagnostic criteria to be classified as likely pathogenic, demonstrating its potential to scale the reclassification of VUSs.
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.