Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37878314›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Rates and Classification of Variants of Uncertain Significance in Hereditary Disease Genetic Testing.

Elaine Chen, Flavia M Facio, Kerry W Aradhya, Susan Rojahn, Kathryn E Hatchell, Sienna Aguilar, Karen Ouyang, Sulagna Saitta, Andrea K Hanson-Kwan, Nicole Nakousi Capurro and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
62.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

127 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 201 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. How variants of uncertain significance affect clinical decisions: A systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Translational cancer research · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. AAVC: An automated framework for high-accuracy ACMG-based variant classification.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Genetic analysis of neurodegenerative diseases.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    Review

67 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Elaine ChenInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Flavia M FacioInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Kerry W AradhyaInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Susan RojahnInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Kathryn E HatchellInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Sienna AguilarInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Karen OuyangInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Sulagna SaittaDivision of Clinical Genetics, Departments of Pediatrics and Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Andrea K Hanson-KwanDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Nicole Nakousi CapurroSchool of Medicine, University of Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile.
Eriko TakamineDepartment of Medical Genetics, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Saumya Shekhar JamuarGenetics Service, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.
Dianalee McKnightInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Britt JohnsonInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Swaroop AradhyaInvitae Corporation, San Francisco, California.
Invitae (United States) · USStanford University · USKK Women's and Children's Hospital · SGTokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital · JPUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Valparaíso · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) are rampant in clinical genetic testing, frustrating clinicians, patients, and laboratories because the uncertainty hinders diagnoses and clinical management. A comprehensive assessment of VUSs across many disease genes is needed to guide efforts to reduce uncertainty. Objective: To describe the sources, gene distribution, and population-level attributes of VUSs and to evaluate the impact of the different types of evidence used to reclassify them. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used germline DNA variant data from individuals referred by clinicians for diagnostic genetic testing for hereditary disorders. Participants included individuals for whom gene panel testing was conducted between September 9, 2014, and September 7, 2022. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, to April 1, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were VUS rates (stratified by age; clinician-reported race, ethnicity, and ancestry groups; types of gene panels; and variant attributes), percentage of VUSs reclassified as benign or likely benign vs pathogenic or likely pathogenic, and enrichment of evidence types used for reclassifying VUSs. Results: The study cohort included 1 689 845 individuals ranging in age from 0 to 89 years at time of testing (median age, 50 years), with 1 203 210 (71.2%) female individuals. There were 39 150 Ashkenazi Jewish individuals (2.3%), 64 730 Asian individuals (3.8%), 126 739 Black individuals (7.5%), 5539 French Canadian individuals (0.3%), 169 714 Hispanic individuals (10.0%), 5058 Native American individuals (0.3%), 2696 Pacific Islander individuals (0.2%), 4842 Sephardic Jewish individuals (0.3%), and 974 383 White individuals (57.7%). Among all individuals tested, 692 227 (41.0%) had at least 1 VUS and 535 385 (31.7%) had only VUS results. The number of VUSs per individual increased as more genes were tested, and most VUSs were missense changes (86.6%). More VUSs were observed per sequenced gene in individuals who were not from a European White population, in middle-aged and older adults, and in individuals who underwent testing for disorders with incomplete penetrance. Of 37 699 unique VUSs that were reclassified, 30 239 (80.2%) were ultimately categorized as benign or likely benign. A mean (SD) of 30.7 (20.0) months elapsed for VUSs to be reclassified to benign or likely benign, and a mean (SD) of 22.4 (18.9) months elapsed for VUSs to be reclassified to pathogenic or likely pathogenic. Clinical evidence contributed most to reclassification. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of approximately 1.6 million individuals highlighted the need for better methods for interpreting missense variants, increased availability of clinical and experimental evidence for variant classification, and more diverse representation of race, ethnicity, and ancestry groups in genomic databases. Data from this study could provide a sound basis for understanding the sources and resolution of VUSs and navigating appropriate next steps in patient care.

Indexed as

Genetic Diseases, InbornGenetic TestingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmerican Indian or Alaska NativeCanadaChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesEthnicityFemaleHumansInfantInfant, Newborn

Identifiers

PMID37878314
PMCPMC10600581
OpenAlexW4387931371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.