ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Major Causes of Conflicting Interpretations of Variant Pathogenicity in Rare Disease: A Systematic Analysis.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Capsule-enhanced hierarchical vision transformers for rare disease classification from medical images.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Genetic background shapes AI-predicted variant effects.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Actionable Variants of Unknown Significance in Inherited Arrhythmogenic Syndromes: A Further Step Forward in Genetic Diagnosis.Biomedicines · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The identification of the genetic causes of inherited disorders from next-generation sequencing (NGS) data remains a complicated process, in particular due to challenges in interpretation of the vast amount of generated data and hundreds of candidate variants identified. Inconsistencies in variant classification, where genetic centers classify the same variant differently, can hinder accurate diagnoses for rare diseases. Publicly available databases that collect data on human genetic variations and their association with diseases provide ample opportunities to discover conflicts in variant interpretation worldwide. In this study, we explored patterns of variant classification discrepancies using data from ClinVar, a public archive of variant interpretations. We found that 5.7% of variants have conflicting interpretations (COIs) reported, and the vast majority of interpretation conflicts arise for variants of uncertain significance (VUS). As many as 78% of clinically relevant genes harbor variants with COIs, and genes with high COI rates tended to have more exons and longer transcripts, with a greater proportion of genes linked to several distinct conditions. The enrichment analysis of COI-enriched genes revealed that the products of these genes are involved in cardiac disorders, muscle development, and function. To improve diagnoses, we believe that specific variant interpretation rules could be developed for such genes. Additionally, our findings underscore the need for the publication of variant pathogenicity evidence and the importance of considering every variant as VUS unless proven otherwise.
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.