ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Language models reveal evidence gaps in variants of uncertain significance.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Most rare coding variants in monogenic disease genes remain classified as Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS), limiting their use in clinical care. Many variant classifications have been submitted to ClinVar, often with rich free-text summaries of the evidence underlying each classification. These narratives are not standardized and are difficult to mine systematically, making it challenging to identify variants that might be reclassified as new evidence becomes available. Methods: We developed a two-stage language-model pipeline that (i) detects whether functional, population, or computational evidence is described in ClinVar and ClinGen variant summaries, and (ii) classifies whether it is evidence of pathogenicity or benignity. We first constructed Variant Evidence Text Annotations (VETA), a dataset of 44,522 ACMG/AMP keyword-description pairs derived from 18,678 ClinVar and ClinGen variant summaries using an LLM-based consensus annotation procedure. We then fine-tuned BioBERT-large models for each evidence type and stage, and validated performance using independent ClinGen expert-curated summaries as well as orthogonal variantlevel evidence, including functional screening, computational scores, and population estimates of disease impact. Results: Across evidence types, our models accurately identify whether functional, population, and computational evidence is present and whether it leans toward a pathogenic or benign impact. We find high agreement with ClinGen expert annotations and highly significant separation of validation scores between model-predicted benign and pathogenic groups (functional assays Conclusions: Transforming unstructured variant summaries into a structured, evidence-type matrix enables scalable detection of evidence gaps, allowing for the systematic integration of new data sources, and prioritization of VUS that are most likely to be reclassified. This language model-enabled pipeline provides a generalizable digital approach to identify clinical evidence gaps as functional screens, biobank resources, and computational predictors continue to evolve.
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.