ArticleBMC bioinformatics2024
Assigning credit where it is due: an information content score to capture the clinical value of multiplexed assays of variant effect.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Variant Reclassification in Hereditary Disease Genetic Testing.JAMA network open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA variant can be pathogenic or benign with relation to a human disease. Current classification categories from benign to pathogenic reflect a probabilistic summary of the current understanding. A primary metric of clinical utility for multiplexed assays of variant effect (MAVE) is the number of variants that can be reclassified from uncertain significance (VUS). However, a gap in this measure of utility is that it underrepresents the information gained from MAVEs. The aim of this study was to develop an improved quantification metric for MAVE utility. We propose adopting an information content approach that includes data that does not reclassify variants will better reflect true information gain. We adopted an information content approach to evaluate the information gain, in bits, for MAVEs of BRCA1, PTEN, and TP53. Here, one bit represents the amount of information required to completely classify a single variant starting from no information.
resultsBRCA1 MAVEs produced a total of 831.2 bits of information, 6.58% of the total missense information in BRCA1 and a 22-fold increase over the information that only contributed to VUS reclassification. PTEN MAVEs produced 2059.6 bits of information which represents 32.8% of the total missense information in PTEN and an 85-fold increase over the information that contributed to VUS reclassification. TP53 MAVEs produced 277.8 bits of information which represents 6.22% of the total missense information in TP53 and a 3.5-fold increase over the information that contributed to VUS reclassification.
conclusionsAn information content approach will more accurately portray information gained through MAVE mapping efforts than by counting the number of variants reclassified. This information content approach may also help define the impact of guideline changes that modify the information definitions used to classify groups of variants.
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.