Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29254502›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2017

Clinical implications and considerations for evaluation of in silico algorithms for use with ACMG/AMP clinical variant interpretation guidelines.

Lora J H Bean, Madhuri R Hegde

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Assessing Protein Surface-Based Scoring for Interpreting Genomic Variants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Applications for Deep Learning in Epilepsy Genetic Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lora J H BeanDepartment of Human Genetics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. lorabean@eglgenetics.com.
Madhuri R HegdeDepartment of Human Genetics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Emory University · USPerkinElmer (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical genetics laboratories have recently adopted guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants set by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP). The use of in silico algorithms to predict whether amino acid substitutions result in human disease is inconsistent across clinical laboratories. The clinical genetics community must carefully consider how in silico predictions can be incorporated into variant interpretation in clinical practice.Please see related Research article: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1353-5.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicSoftwareAlgorithmsEvaluation Studies as TopicGenetics, MedicalGenetic TestingHumansPathology, ClinicalPolymorphism, GeneticSocieties, MedicalAmerican College of Medical Genetics (ACMG)Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP)Clinical geneticsClinVarDiagnosticsIn silico algorithmVariant interpretation

Identifiers

PMID29254502
PMCPMC5733812
OpenAlexW2781194065

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.