ArticleScientific reports2024
CNVoyant a machine learning framework for accurate and explainable copy number variant classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation.Global medical genetics · 2026Article
- Deep DNA and protein level feature integration for robust clinical variant interpretation using probabilistic gradient boosting.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Application and clinical utility assessment of natural language processing-based software for copy-number variants interpretation.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Genetics of Congenital Heart Disease.Clinics in perinatology · 2025Review
- The Diagnostic Value of Copy Number Variants in Genetic Cardiomyopathies and Channelopathies.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The precise classification of copy number variants (CNVs) presents a significant challenge in genomic medicine, primarily due to the complex nature of CNVs and their diverse impact on rare genetic diseases (RGDs). This complexity is compounded by the limitations of existing methods in accurately distinguishing between benign, uncertain, and pathogenic CNVs. Addressing this gap, we introduce CNVoyant, a machine learning-based multi-class framework designed to enhance the clinical significance classification of CNVs. Trained on a comprehensive dataset of 52,176 ClinVar entries across pathogenic, uncertain, and benign classifications, CNVoyant incorporates a broad spectrum of genomic features, including genome position, disease-gene annotations, dosage sensitivity, and conservation scores. Models to predict the clinical significance of copy number gains and losses were trained independently. Final models were selected after testing 29 machine learning architectures and 10,000 hyperparameter combinations each for deletions and duplications via fivefold cross-validation. We validate the performance of CNVoyant by leveraging a comprehensive set of 21,574 CNVs from the DECIPHER database, a highly regarded resource known for its extensive catalog of chromosomal imbalances linked to clinical outcomes. Compared to alternative approaches, CNVoyant shows marked improvements in precision-recall and ROC AUC metrics for binary pathogenic classifications while going one step further, offering multi-classification of clinical significance and corresponding SHAP explainability plots. Additionally, when provided germline CNV calls from real-world RGD cases with diagnostic CNV(s), CNVoyant correctly classified all diagnostic CNVs as having pathogenic significance with high confidence. This large-scale validation demonstrates CNVoyant's superior accuracy and underscores its potential to aid genomic researchers and clinical geneticists in interpreting the clinical implications of real CNVs.
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.