Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35360839›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022

Adaptation of ACMG-ClinGen Technical Standards for Copy Number Variant Interpretation Concordance.

Kuo Zhang, Guigao Lin, Dongsheng Han, Yanxi Han, Rongxue Peng, Jinming Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kuo ZhangNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing Hospital/National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China.
Guigao LinNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing Hospital/National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China.
Dongsheng HanNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing Hospital/National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China.
Yanxi HanNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing Hospital/National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China.
Rongxue PengNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing Hospital/National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China.
Jinming LiNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing Hospital/National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate inter-laboratory classification concordance for copy number variants (CNVs) with a semiquantitative point-based scoring metric recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and Clinical Genome Resources (ClinGen). A total of 234 CNVs distributed by the National Center of Clinical Laboratories (NCCLs), and 72 CNVs submitted by different laboratories, were distributed to nine clinical laboratories performing routine clinical CNV testing in China and independently classified across laboratories. The overall inter-laboratory complete classification concordance rate of the 234 distributed CNVs increased from 18% (41/234) to 76% (177/234) using the scoring metric compared to the laboratory's previous method. The overall inter-laboratory complete classification concordance rate of the 72 submitted CNVs was 65% (47/72) using the scoring metrics. The 82 variants that initially did not reach complete concordance classification and 1 additional CNV deletion were reviewed; 34 reached complete agreement, and the overall post-review complete concordance rate was 85% (260/306). Additionally, the overall percentage of classification discordance possibly impacting medical management [i.e., pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) vs. variant of uncertain significance (VUS)] was 11% (35/306). The causes of initial and final discordance in the classification were identified. The ACMG-ClinGen framework has promoted consistency in interpreting the clinical significance of CNVs. Continuous training among laboratories, further criteria and additional clarification of the standards, sharing classifications and supporting evidence through public database, and ongoing work for dosage sensitive genes/regions curation will be beneficial for harmonization of CNVs classification.

Indexed as

ACMG-ClinGen technical standardsclassification and interpretationconcordancecopy number variantinter-laboratory

Identifiers

PMID35360839
PMCPMC8960312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.