ArticleScientific reports2019
Refinement of evolutionary medicine predictions based on clinical evidence for the manifestations of Mendelian diseases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effluxosomes and the evolution of metal resistance inInfection and immunity · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Lag in Precision Medicine.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Exploring TTN variants as genetic insights into cardiomyopathy pathogenesis and potential emerging clues to molecular mechanisms in cardiomyopathies.Scientific reports · 2024Review
- Apolipoprotein E (APOE) Haplotypes in Healthy Subjects from Worldwide Macroareas: A Population Genetics Perspective for Cardiovascular Disease, Neurodegeneration, and Dementia.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Article
- Mapping the Constrained Coding Regions in the Human Genome to Their Corresponding Proteins.Journal of molecular biology · 2023Article
- The missing heritability in type 1 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2022Review
- Our Experiences and Learnings in Diagnosing MODY from Non-Institutional-Based Diabetes Care Clinics.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prediction methods have become an integral part of biomedical and biotechnological research. However, their clinical interpretations are largely based on biochemical or molecular data, but not clinical data. Here, we focus on improving the reliability and clinical applicability of prediction algorithms. We assembled and curated two large non-overlapping large databases of clinical phenotypes. These phenotypes were caused by missense variations in 44 and 63 genes associated with Mendelian diseases. We used these databases to establish and validate the model, allowing us to improve the predictions obtained from EVmutation, SNAP2 and PoPMuSiC 2.1. The predictions of clinical effects suffered from a lack of specificity, which appears to be the common constraint of all recently used prediction methods, although predictions mediated by these methods are associated with nearly absolute sensitivity. We introduced evidence-based tailoring of the default settings of the prediction methods; this tailoring substantially improved the prediction outcomes. Additionally, the comparisons of the clinically observed and theoretical variations led to the identification of large previously unreported pools of variations that were under negative selection during molecular evolution. The evolutionary variation analysis approach described here is the first to enable the highly specific identification of likely disease-causing missense variations that have not yet been associated with any clinical phenotype.
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.