ArticleScientific reports2022
Improving genetic diagnosis by disease-specific, ACMG/AMP variant interpretation guidelines for hearing loss.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Improving detection of monogenic diabetes through reanalysis of GCK variants of uncertain significance.Acta diabetologica · 2025Article
- GDC: Integration of Multi-Omic and Phenotypic Resources to Unravel the Genetic Pathogenesis of Hearing Loss.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Explicable prioritization of genetic variants by integration of rule-based and machine learning algorithms for diagnosis of rare Mendelian disorders.Human genomics · 2024Article
- An overload of missense variants in the OTOG gene may drive a higher prevalence of familial Meniere disease in the European population.Human genetics · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 2018 Hearing Loss Expert Panel (HL-EP)-specific guidelines specified from the universal 2015 ACMG/AMP guidelines are proposed to be used in genetic HL, which prompted this study. A genetic HL cohort comprising 135 unrelated probands with available exome sequencing data was established. Overall, 169 variants were prioritized as candidates and interpreted using the 2015 ACMG/AMP and 2018 HL-EP guidelines. Changes in rule application and variant classification between the guidelines were compared. The concordance rate of variant classification of each variant between the guidelines was 71.60%, with significant difference. The proportion of pathogenic variants increased from 13.02% (2015) to 29.59% (2018). Variant classifications of autosomal recessive (AR) variants that previously belonged to VUS or likely pathogenic in the 2015 guidelines were changed toward pathogenic in the 2018 guidelines more frequently than those of autosomal dominant variants (29.17% vs. 6.38%, P = 0.005). Stratification of the PM3 and PP1 rules in the 2018 guidelines led to more substantial escalation than that in the 2015 guidelines. We compared the disease-specific guidelines (2018) with the universal guidelines (2015) using real-world data. Owing to the sophistication of case-level data, the HL-specific guidelines have more explicitly classified AR variants toward "likely pathogenic" or "pathogenic", serving as potential references for other recessive genetic diseases.
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.