ArticleHuman mutation2019
A fully-automated event-based variant prioritizing solution to the CAGI5 intellectual disability gene panel challenge.
Article in Human mutation, 2019. 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.
- Genetic variants and phenotypic data curated for the CAGI6 intellectual disability panel challenge.Human genetics · 2025Article
- CAGI, the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation, establishes progress and prospects for computational genetic variant interpretation methods.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Reports from the fifth edition of CAGI: The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation.Human mutation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Recent applications of gene panel sequencing analysis have significantly helped with identifying genetic causes for inherited diseases. However, large amounts of candidate variants remain a major challenge for prioritizing, often requiring arbitrary cutoffs in multiple steps. In addition, existing tools often prioritize a list of promising candidates that require much manual work to evaluate. To this end, we designed an automated, basically cutoff-free scoring scheme named Context and Hereditary Event based Scoring Scheme (CHESS), that scores all possible inheritance events in each gene, by taking into consideration phenotypes, genotypes, and how the manual prioritization works. We applied CHESS to the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation 5 intellectual disability panel challenge, to assign clinical phenotypes to patients based on gene panel sequencing data. Through this blind testing, CHESS proved to be a leading and useful tool for genetic diagnosis in a research setting. Further analyses showed that precise phenotype terms played an important role in variant prioritization and that multiple etiologies may exist for some patients. CHESS also successfully identified many of the causal, putative and contributing variants. In the postchallenge analysis, we showed that our best submission performed slightly better than the predictions made by a state-of-the-art tool. We believe that CHESS can provide aid to this and many other diagnostic scenarios.
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.