ArticleCombinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening2025
Evaluating the Performance of
Article in Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVariants in the PRRT2 gene are associated with paroxysmal kinesigenic dyskinesia and other episodic disorders. With the employment of variant screening in patients with episodic dyskinesia, many PRRT2 variants have been discovered. Bioinformatics tools are becoming increasingly important for predicting the functional significance of variants. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of six in silico tools for PRRT2 missense variants.
methodsPathogenic PRRT2 variants were retrieved from the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD) and literature from the PubMed database. The benign set of non-deleterious variants was retrieved from the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD). The overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of SIFT, PolyPhen2, MutationTaster, CADD, Fathmm, and Provean were analyzed. The MCC score and ROC curve were calculated. The GraphPad Prism 8.0 software was used to plot ROC curves for the six bioinformatics software.
resultsA total of 45 missense variants with confirmed pathogenicity were used as a positive set, and 222 missense variants were used as a negative set. The top three tools in accuracy are Fathmm, Provean, and MutationTaster. The top three predictors in sensitivity are SIFT, Poly- Phen2, and CADD. Regarding specificity, the top three tools were Provean, Fathmm, and MutationTaster. In terms of the MCC and F-score, the highest degree was observed in Fathmm. Fathmm also had the highest AUC score. The cutoff values of Fathmm, CADD, PolyPhen2, and Provean were between the median prediction scores of the positive and negative sets. In contrast, the cutoff value of SIFT was below the median prediction score of the positive and negative sets. Fathmm had the highest accuracy.
conclusionThe prediction performance of six in silico tools differed among the parameters. Fathmm had the best prediction performance, with the highest accuracy and MCC/F-score for PRRT2 missense variants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38910474What 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.