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":"额外的计算工具的校准扩展了ClinGen推荐选项的变体分类与PP3/BP4标准。","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":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>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 <em>Strong</em>. A new generation of tools using distinctive approaches has since been released, and these methods must be independently calibrated for clinical application.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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 3 new tools (AlphaMissense, ESM1b, and VARITY) and calibrated scores meeting each evidence strength.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All 3 tools reached the <em>Strong</em> level of evidence for variant pathogenicity and <em>Moderate</em> for benignity, although sometimes for few variants. Compared with previously recommended tools, these yielded at best only modest improvements in the trade-offs between evidence strength and false-positive predictions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>At calibrated thresholds, 3 new computational predictors provided evidence for variant pathogenicity at similar strength to the 4 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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12717,"journal":{"name":"Genetics in Medicine","volume":"27 6","pages":"Article 101402"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>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 <em>Strong</em>. A new generation of tools using distinctive approaches has since been released, and these methods must be independently calibrated for clinical application.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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 3 new tools (AlphaMissense, ESM1b, and VARITY) and calibrated scores meeting each evidence strength.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All 3 tools reached the <em>Strong</em> level of evidence for variant pathogenicity and <em>Moderate</em> for benignity, although sometimes for few variants. Compared with previously recommended tools, these yielded at best only modest improvements in the trade-offs between evidence strength and false-positive predictions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>At calibrated thresholds, 3 new computational predictors provided evidence for variant pathogenicity at similar strength to the 4 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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genetics in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"27 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360025000498\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360025000498","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Calibration of additional computational tools expands ClinGen recommendation options for variant classification with PP3/BP4 criteria
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.
Methods
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 3 new tools (AlphaMissense, ESM1b, and VARITY) and calibrated scores meeting each evidence strength.
Results
All 3 tools reached the Strong level of evidence for variant pathogenicity and Moderate for benignity, although sometimes for few variants. Compared with previously recommended tools, these yielded at best only modest improvements in the trade-offs between evidence strength and false-positive predictions.
Conclusion
At calibrated thresholds, 3 new computational predictors provided evidence for variant pathogenicity at similar strength to the 4 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.
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.