Calibration of additional computational tools expands ClinGen recommendation options for variant classification with PP3/BP4 criteria.

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Timothy Bergquist, Sarah L Stenton, Emily A W Nadeau, Alicia B Byrne, Marc S Greenblatt, Steven M Harrison, Sean V Tavtigian, Anne O'Donnell-Luria, Leslie G Biesecker, Predrag Radivojac, Steven E Brenner, Vikas Pejaver
{"title":"Calibration of additional computational tools expands ClinGen recommendation options for variant classification with PP3/BP4 criteria.","authors":"Timothy Bergquist, Sarah L Stenton, Emily A W Nadeau, Alicia B Byrne, Marc S Greenblatt, Steven M Harrison, Sean V Tavtigian, Anne O'Donnell-Luria, Leslie G Biesecker, Predrag Radivojac, Steven E Brenner, Vikas Pejaver","doi":"10.1016/j.gim.2025.101402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We previously developed an approach to calibrate computational tools for clinical variant classification, updating recommendations for the reliable use of variant impact predictors to provide evidence strength up to Strong. A new generation of tools using distinctive approaches has since been released, and these methods must be independently calibrated for clinical application.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using our local posterior probability-based calibration and our established data set of ClinVar pathogenic and benign variants, we determined the strength of evidence provided by three new tools (AlphaMissense, ESM1b, VARITY) and calibrated scores meeting each evidence strength.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three tools reached the Strong level of evidence for variant pathogenicity and Moderate for benignity, though sometimes for few variants. Compared to previously recommended tools, these yielded at best only modest improvements in the tradeoffs of evidence strength and false positive predictions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At calibrated thresholds, three new computational predictors provided evidence for variant pathogenicity at similar strength to the four previously recommended predictors (and comparable with functional assays for some variants). This calibration broadens the scope of computational tools for application in clinical variant classification. Their new approaches offer promise for future advancement of the field.</p>","PeriodicalId":12717,"journal":{"name":"Genetics in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"101402"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2025.101402","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We previously developed an approach to calibrate computational tools for clinical variant classification, updating recommendations for the reliable use of variant impact predictors to provide evidence strength up to Strong. A new generation of tools using distinctive approaches has since been released, and these methods must be independently calibrated for clinical application.

Method: Using our local posterior probability-based calibration and our established data set of ClinVar pathogenic and benign variants, we determined the strength of evidence provided by three new tools (AlphaMissense, ESM1b, VARITY) and calibrated scores meeting each evidence strength.

Results: All three tools reached the Strong level of evidence for variant pathogenicity and Moderate for benignity, though sometimes for few variants. Compared to previously recommended tools, these yielded at best only modest improvements in the tradeoffs of evidence strength and false positive predictions.

Conclusion: At calibrated thresholds, three new computational predictors provided evidence for variant pathogenicity at similar strength to the four previously recommended predictors (and comparable with functional assays for some variants). This calibration broadens the scope of computational tools for application in clinical variant classification. Their new approaches offer promise for future advancement of the field.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Genetics in Medicine
Genetics in Medicine 医学-遗传学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.80%
发文量
857
审稿时长
1.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Genetics in Medicine (GIM) is the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The journal''s mission is to enhance the knowledge, understanding, and practice of medical genetics and genomics through publications in clinical and laboratory genetics and genomics, including ethical, legal, and social issues as well as public health. GIM encourages research that combats racism, includes diverse populations and is written by authors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信