Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37083939›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2022

The Regulatory Mendelian Mutation score for GRCh38.

Max Schubach, Lusiné Nazaretyan, Martin Kircher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Max SchubachExploratory Diagnostic Sciences, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2032-6679
Lusiné NazaretyanExploratory Diagnostic Sciences, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5820-4143
Martin KircherExploratory Diagnostic Sciences, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9278-5471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenome sequencing efforts for individuals with rare Mendelian disease have increased the research focus on the noncoding genome and the clinical need for methods that prioritize potentially disease causal noncoding variants. Some tools for assessment of variant pathogenicity as well as annotations are not available for the current human genome build (GRCh38), for which the adoption in databases, software, and pipelines was slow.

resultsHere, we present an updated version of the Regulatory Mendelian Mutation (ReMM) score, retrained on features and variants derived from the GRCh38 genome build. Like its GRCh37 version, it achieves good performance on its highly imbalanced data. To improve accessibility and provide users with a toolbox to score their variant files and look up scores in the genome, we developed a website and API for easy score lookup.

conclusionsScores of the GRCh38 genome build are highly correlated to the prior release with a performance increase due to the better coverage of features. For prioritization of noncoding mutations in imbalanced datasets, the ReMM score performed much better than other variation scores. Prescored whole-genome files of GRCh37 and GRCh38 genome builds are cited in the article and the website; UCSC genome browser tracks, and an API are available at https://remm.bihealth.org.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanSoftwareDatabases, GeneticHumansMutationimbalanced datamachine learningMendelian diseasenoncoding scorerare variant analysisvariant predictionweb service

Identifiers

PMID37083939
PMCPMC10120424

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.