ArticleHuman mutation2019
Assessing the performance of in silico methods for predicting the pathogenicity of variants in the gene CHEK2, among Hispanic females with breast cancer.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- CAGI, the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation, establishes progress and prospects for computational genetic variant interpretation methods.Genome biology · 2024Article
- From bugs to bedside: functional annotation of human genetic variation for neurological disorders using invertebrate models.Human molecular genetics · 2022Article
- Genome interpretation using in silico predictors of variant impact.Human genetics · 2022Review
- Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework.Genome medicine · 2019Article
- Reports from the fifth edition of CAGI: The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation.Human mutation · 2019Article
- CAGI5: Objective performance assessments of predictions based on the Evolutionary Action equation.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
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The availability of disease-specific genomic data is critical for developing new computational methods that predict the pathogenicity of human variants and advance the field of precision medicine. However, the lack of gold standards to properly train and benchmark such methods is one of the greatest challenges in the field. In response to this challenge, the scientific community is invited to participate in the Critical Assessment for Genome Interpretation (CAGI), where unpublished disease variants are available for classification by in silico methods. As part of the CAGI-5 challenge, we evaluated the performance of 18 submissions and three additional methods in predicting the pathogenicity of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2) for cases of breast cancer in Hispanic females. As part of the assessment, the efficacy of the analysis method and the setup of the challenge were also considered. The results indicated that though the challenge could benefit from additional participant data, the combined generalized linear model analysis and odds of pathogenicity analysis provided a framework to evaluate the methods submitted for SNV pathogenicity identification and for comparison to other available methods. The outcome of this challenge and the approaches used can help guide further advancements in identifying SNV-disease relationships.
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.