ArticleScientific reports2021
Powerful use of automated prioritization of candidate variants in genetic hearing loss with extreme etiologic heterogeneity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Article
- Improving genetic diagnosis by disease-specific, ACMG/AMP variant interpretation guidelines for hearing loss.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Diagnostic performance of automated, streamlined, daily updated exome analysis in patients with neurodevelopmental delay.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Variant prioritization of exome sequencing (ES) data for molecular diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) with extreme etiologic heterogeneity poses a significant challenge. This study used an automated variant prioritization system ("EVIDENCE") to analyze SNHL patient data and assess its diagnostic accuracy. We performed ES of 263 probands manifesting mild to moderate or higher degrees of SNHL. Candidate variants were classified according to the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics guidelines, and we compared the accuracy, call rates, and efficiency of variant prioritizations performed manually by humans or using EVIDENCE. In our in silico panel, 21 synthetic cases were successfully analyzed by EVIDENCE. In our cohort, the ES diagnostic yield for SNHL by manual analysis was 50.19% (132/263) and 50.95% (134/263) by EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE processed ES data 24-fold faster than humans, and the concordant call rate between humans and EVIDENCE was 97.72% (257/263). Additionally, EVIDENCE outperformed human accuracy, especially at discovering causative variants of rare syndromic deafness, whereas flexible interpretations that required predefined specific genotype-phenotype correlations were possible only by manual prioritization. The automated variant prioritization system remarkably facilitated the molecular diagnosis of hearing loss with high accuracy and efficiency, fostering the popularization of molecular genetic diagnosis of SNHL.
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.