ArticleBioinformatics advances2025
Benchmarking of variant pathogenicity prediction methods using a population genetics approach.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 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.
- Inborn Errors of Immunity Genotype: A Retrospective Study from the United Arab Emirates.Journal of clinical immunology · 2026Article
- Predicting the functional impact of single nucleotide variants in Drosophila melanogaster with FlyCADD.Genetics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Variant pathogenicity predictors are essential for identifying new associations between genetic variants and rare diseases. However, despite the availability of numerous predictors, there is no clear consensus on which methods provide the most reliable results. The common practice of training, testing, and benchmarking these predictors using known variant sets from disease or mutagenesis studies raises concerns about ascertainment bias and data circularity. Results: We benchmarked commonly used pathogenicity predictors using an orthogonal approach that does not rely on predefined "ground truth" datasets. By leveraging population-level genomic data from gnomAD and the Context-Adjusted Proportion of Singletons (CAPS) metric, we identified CADD and REVEL as the best-performing predictors for distinguishing extremely deleterious variants from moderately deleterious ones. REVEL demonstrated superior calibration. Additionally, we show that CAPS can serve as a meta-analysis tool for interpreting variant annotations and highlight biases in ClinVar-based predictor training. Availability and implementation: CAPS analysis and benchmarking results are available at https://github.com/mgudVCCRI/PopGenVariantFiltering.
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.