ReviewCancer genomics & proteomics
Comparison of Open-access Databases for Clinical Variant Interpretation in Cancer: A Case Study of MDS/AML.
Review in Cancer genomics & proteomics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Utility of public knowledge bases for the interpretation of comprehensive tumor molecular profiling results.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Article
- EZCancerTarget: an open-access drug repurposing and data-collection tool to enhance target validation and optimize international research efforts against highly progressive cancers.BioData mining · 2022Article
- Computational approaches for predicting variant impact: An overview from resources, principles to applications.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, guidelines for variant interpretation in cancer have been established. However, these guidelines do not mention which databases are most suited to performing this task. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe give an overview of existing databases and evaluate their benefit in practical application. We compared three meta-databases and 12 databases for a dataset of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia.
resultsClinical implications were found for 13% of all variants. One-third of variants with therapeutic implications were uniquely contained in one database. The VICC meta-database was the most extensive source of information, featuring 92% of variants with a drug association. However, a comparison of meta-databases and original sources indicated that some variants are missing in those meta-databases.
conclusionPublic databases provide decision support for interpreting variants but there is still need for manual curation. Meta-databases facilitate the use of multiple resources but should be interpreted with caution.
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.