ArticleHuman genomics2024
AI-derived comparative assessment of the performance of pathogenicity prediction tools on missense variants of breast cancer genes.
Article in Human genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional evaluation of TRPC6 missense variants in cancer patients via molecular docking analysis compared with patch Clamp electrophysiology.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2026Article
- Functional Evaluation ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Clinically interpretable deep learning for breast cancer missense variant pathogenicity prediction.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Precision in prediction: tailoring machine learning models for breast cancer missense variants pathogenicity prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Assessing the performance of 28 pathogenicity prediction methods on rare single nucleotide variants in coding regions.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Leveraging AutoML to optimize dataset selection for improved breast cancer variants pathogenicity prediction.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Single nucleotide variants (SNVs) can exert substantial and extremely variable impacts on various cellular functions, making accurate predictions of their consequences challenging, albeit crucial especially in clinical settings such as in oncology. Laboratory-based experimental methods for assessing these effects are time-consuming and often impractical, highlighting the importance of in-silico tools for variant impact prediction. However, the performance metrics of currently available tools on breast cancer missense variants from benchmarking databases have not been thoroughly investigated, creating a knowledge gap in the accurate prediction of pathogenicity. In this study, the benchmarking datasets ClinVar and HGMD were used to evaluate 21 Artificial Intelligence (AI)-derived in-silico tools. Missense variants in breast cancer genes were extracted from ClinVar and HGMD professional v2023.1. The HGMD dataset focused on pathogenic variants only, to ensure balance, benign variants for the same genes were included from the ClinVar database. Interestingly, our analysis of both datasets revealed variants across genes with varying penetrance levels like low and moderate in addition to high, reinforcing the value of disease-specific tools. The top-performing tools on ClinVar dataset identified were MutPred (Accuracy = 0.73), Meta-RNN (Accuracy = 0.72), ClinPred (Accuracy = 0.71), Meta-SVM, REVEL, and Fathmm-XF (Accuracy = 0.70). While on HGMD dataset they were ClinPred (Accuracy = 0.72), MetaRNN (Accuracy = 0.71), CADD (Accuracy = 0.69), Fathmm-MKL (Accuracy = 0.68), and Fathmm-XF (Accuracy = 0.67). These findings offer clinicians and researchers valuable insights for selecting, improving, and developing effective in-silico tools for breast cancer pathogenicity prediction. Bridging this knowledge gap contributes to advancing precision medicine and enhancing diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for breast cancer patients with potential implications for other conditions.
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.