ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2022
The Clinical Variant Analysis Tool: Analyzing the evidence supporting reported genomic variation in clinical practice.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using gene panels in the diagnosis of neuromuscular disorders: A mini-review.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- The practice of genomic medicine: A delineation of the process and its governing principles.Frontiers in medicine · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGenomic test results, regardless of laboratory variant classification, require clinical practitioners to judge the applicability of a variant for medical decisions. Teaching and standardizing clinical interpretation of genomic variation calls for a methodology or tool.
methodsTo generate such a tool, we distilled the Clinical Genome Resource framework of causality and the American College of Medical Genetics/Association of Molecular Pathology and Quest Diagnostic Laboratory scoring of variant deleteriousness into the Clinical Variant Analysis Tool (CVAT). Applying this to 289 clinical exome reports, we compared the performance of junior practitioners with that of experienced medical geneticists and assessed the utility of reported variants.
resultsCVAT enabled performance comparable to that of experienced medical geneticists. In total, 124 of 289 (42.9%) exome reports and 146 of 382 (38.2%) reported variants supported a diagnosis. Overall, 10.5% (1 pathogenic [P] or likely pathogenic [LP] variant and 39 variants of uncertain significance [VUS]) of variants were reported in genes without established disease association; 20.2% (23 P/LP and 54 VUS) were in genes without sufficient phenotypic concordance; 7.3% (15 P/LP and 13 VUS) conflicted with the known molecular disease mechanism; and 24% (91 VUS) had insufficient evidence for deleteriousness.
conclusionImplementation of CVAT standardized clinical interpretation of genomic variation and emphasized the need for collaborative and transparent reporting of genomic variation.
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.