ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024
Assessment of ability of AlphaMissense to identify variants affecting susceptibility to common disease.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequence effects on mutation rates investigated in whole-genome sequenced UK Biobank participants.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- The GPCRDiabetologia · 2026Article
- Analysis of structure and conservation for supporting functional evaluation of PMS2 missense variants.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Identification of novelResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Harnessing artificial intelligence for genomic variant prediction: advances, challenges, and future directions.GigaScience · 2026Review
- Assessment of ability of a DNA language model to predict pathogenicity of rare coding variants.Journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Classification models distinguish functional and trafficking effects of KCNQ1 variants to enhance variant interpretation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Benchmarking AlphaMissense pathogenicity predictions againstBiochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Article
- November in EJHG: looking at genetic counsellor training in Europe, novel clinical guidelines and ancestral impact on variant interpretation.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Analysis of rare coding variants in 470,000 exome-sequenced subjects characterises contributions to risk of type 2 diabetes.PloS one · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An important issue in the analysis of rare variant association studies is the ability to annotate nonsynonymous variants in terms of their likely importance as affecting protein function. To address this, AlphaMissense was recently released and was shown to have good performance using benchmarks based on variants causing severe disease and on functional assays. Here, we assess the performance of AlphaMissense across 18 genes which had previously demonstrated association between rare coding variants and hyperlipidaemia, hypertension or type 2 diabetes. The strength of evidence in favour of association, expressed as the signed log p value (SLP), was compared between AlphaMissense and 43 other annotation methods. The results demonstrated marked variability between genes regarding the extent to which nonsynonymous variants contributed to evidence for association and also between the performance of different methods of annotating the nonsynonymous variants. Although AlphaMissense produced the highest SLP on average across genes, it produced the maximum SLP for only 4 genes. For some genes, other methods produced a considerably higher SLP and there were examples of genes where AlphaMissense produced no evidence for association while another method performed well. The marked inconsistency across genes means that it is difficult to decide on an optimal method of analysis of sequence data. The fact that different methods perform well for different genes suggests that if one wished to use sequence data for individual risk prediction then gene-specific annotation methods should be used.
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.