ArticleHuman mutation2017
Determination of disease phenotypes and pathogenic variants from exome sequence data in the CAGI 4 gene panel challenge.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- CAGI, the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation, establishes progress and prospects for computational genetic variant interpretation methods.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Reduced penetrance of pathogenic ACMG variants in a deeply phenotyped cohort study and evaluation of ClinVar classification over time.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- Reports from CAGI: The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation.Human mutation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of gene panel sequence for diagnostic and prognostic testing is now widespread, but there are so far few objective tests of methods to interpret these data. We describe the design and implementation of a gene panel sequencing data analysis pipeline (VarP) and its assessment in a CAGI4 community experiment. The method was applied to clinical gene panel sequencing data of 106 patients, with the goal of determining which of 14 disease classes each patient has and the corresponding causative variant(s). The disease class was correctly identified for 36 cases, including 10 where the original clinical pipeline did not find causative variants. For a further seven cases, we found strong evidence of an alternative disease to that tested. Many of the potentially causative variants are missense, with no previous association with disease, and these proved the hardest to correctly assign pathogenicity or otherwise. Post analysis showed that three-dimensional structure data could have helped for up to half of these cases. Over-reliance on HGMD annotation led to a number of incorrect disease assignments. We used a largely ad hoc method to assign probabilities of pathogenicity for each variant, and there is much work still to be done in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.