ArticleThe pharmacogenomics journal2026
Computational variant predictors for pharmacogenomics: from evaluation of single alleles to assessment of adverse drug reactions to antidepressants.
Article in The pharmacogenomics journal, 2026. 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.
- Homology-Based Variant-Effect Predictors Break Down on Cytochrome P450 Pharmacogenes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- preSCRIPT: Large-scale prescription search and annotation engine for pharmacogenomic studies.Pharmacological reports : PR · 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
Abstract
Currently, pharmacogenetics relies on partially annotated star alleles, leaving novel variants and complex haplotypes uninterpretable. Computational scoring frameworks could overcome these limitations. Here, we comprehensively evaluated the ability of existing (CADD, FATHMM-XF, PROVEAN, MutationAssessor, SIFT, PhyloP100, APF, APF2) and novel (PharmGScore and PharmMLScore) variant effect predictors to assess pharmacogenetic alleles in multiple scenarios. Altogether we analyzed 541 PharmVar alleles, high‑throughput CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 mutational maps, and 200 642 UK Biobank exomes linked with health records containing antidepressant treatment outcomes. Many evaluated tools, especially ensemble frameworks, matched or exceeded star allele classifications (ROC‑AUC up to 0.85 for allele definitions, 0.95 in vitro; TPR up to 0.99 for exomes) and accurately predicted severe antidepressant adverse events for carriers of deleterious variants in CYP2C19 (OR 1.20-1.35). Our findings show that computational predictors deliver star allele accuracy while overcoming their limitations. With additional validation, computational tools could enhance clinical decision frameworks by enabling continuous scoring, incorporating previously unknown variants, and providing genome-wide applicability.
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.