Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28106320›Full record

ArticleHuman mutation2017

Classification of Genes: Standardized Clinical Validity Assessment of Gene-Disease Associations Aids Diagnostic Exome Analysis and Reclassifications.

Erica D Smith, Kelly Radtke, Mari Rossi, Deepali N Shinde, Sourat Darabi, Dima El-Khechen, Zöe Powis, Katherine Helbig, Kendra Waller, Dorothy K Grange and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human mutation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Association ofJCO precision oncology · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Erica D SmithAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Kelly RadtkeAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Mari RossiAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Deepali N ShindeAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Sourat DarabiAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Dima El-KhechenAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Zöe PowisAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Katherine HelbigAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Kendra WallerAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Dorothy K GrangeDepartment of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis Children's Hospital, St. Louis, MO, 63110.
Sha TangAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.
Kelly D Farwell HagmanAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ascertaining a diagnosis through exome sequencing can provide potential benefits to patients, insurance companies, and the healthcare system. Yet, as diagnostic sequencing is increasingly employed, vast amounts of human genetic data are produced that need careful curation. We discuss methods for accurately assessing the clinical validity of gene-disease relationships to interpret new research findings in a clinical context and increase the diagnostic rate. The specifics of a gene-disease scoring system adapted for use in a clinical laboratory are described. In turn, clinical validity scoring of gene-disease relationships can inform exome reporting for the identification of new or the upgrade of previous, clinically relevant gene findings. Our retrospective analysis of all reclassification reports from the first 4 years of diagnostic exome sequencing showed that 78% were due to new gene-disease discoveries published in the literature. Among all exome positive/likely positive findings in characterized genes, 32% were in genetic etiologies that were discovered after 2010. Our data underscore the importance and benefits of active and up-to-date curation of a gene-disease database combined with critical clinical validity scoring and proactive reanalysis in the clinical genomics era.

Indexed as

ExomeGenetic Association StudiesGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNAcharacterized genetic etiologyclinical validitydiagnostic exome sequencinggene-disease associationnovel candidate genetic etiologyreclassificationsSCYL1SNAP25

Identifiers

PMID28106320
PMCPMC5655771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.