ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022
Adaptation of ACMG-ClinGen Technical Standards for Copy Number Variant Interpretation Concordance.
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.
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.
- Review
- Application and clinical utility assessment of natural language processing-based software for copy-number variants interpretation.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Copy-number variants in the ACMG secondary finding genes: A reporting framework for clinical cytogeneticists.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- DECIPHER: Improving Genetic Diagnosis Through Dynamic Integration of Genomic and Clinical Data.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2023Review
- Detection of Structural Variants by NGS: Revealing Missing Alleles in Lysosomal Storage Diseases.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Expanding the Phenotype and Genotype Spectrum of a Novel Mutation in Hypomyelinating Leukodystrophy-5 With a Review of the Literature on 42 Cases.Basic and clinical neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.