ArticleMethodsX2022
An optimized protocol for evaluating pathogenicity of
Article in MethodsX, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing the Landscape of Clinical Actionability in Von Hippel-Lindau Syndrome: An Evidence-Based Framework from the INTCancers · 2025Article
- Article
- Development and evaluation of INTFrontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- An integrated somatic and germline approach to aid interpretation of germline variants of uncertain significance in cancer susceptibility genes.Frontiers in oncology · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The interpretation of hereditary genetic sequencing variants is often limited due to the absence of functional data and other key evidence to assess the role of variants in disease. Cancer genetics is unique, as two sets of genomic information are often available from a cancer patient: somatic and germline. Despite the progress made in the integrated analysis of somatic and germline findings, the assessment of pathogenicity of germline variants in high penetrance genes remains grossly underutilized. Indeed, standard ACMG/AMP guidelines for interpreting germline sequence variants do not address the evidence derived from tumor data in cancer. Previously, we have demonstrated the utility of somatic tumor data as supporting evidence to elucidate the role of germline variants in patients suspected with VHL syndrome and other cancers. We have leveraged the key elements of cancer genetics in these cases: genes with expected high disease penetrance and those with a known biallelic mechanism of tumorigenicity. Here we provide our optimized protocol for evaluating the pathogenicity of germline
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.