Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39440667›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia2024

Evaluating novel in silico tools for accurate pathogenicity classification in epilepsy-associated genetic missense variants.

Ludovica Montanucci, Tobias Brünger, Christian M Boßelmann, Alina Ivaniuk, Eduardo Pérez-Palma, Samden Lhatoo, Costin Leu, Dennis Lal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Germline whole-exome sequencing identifies CTNND1 as a candidate gene for hereditary gastric cancer in a large Brazilian cohort.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Identification of novelResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026
    Article
  5. Precision diagnosis ofFrontiers in genetics · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ludovica MontanucciDepartment of Neurology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2375-7359
Tobias BrüngerCologne Center for Genomics (CCG), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Christian M BoßelmannEpilepsy Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Alina IvaniukEpilepsy Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9912-3112
Eduardo Pérez-PalmaUniversidad del Desarrollo, Genética y Genómica, Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Santiago, Chile.
Samden LhatooDepartment of Neurology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0260-3855
Costin LeuDepartment of Neurology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA.
Dennis LalDepartment of Neurology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5173-9636

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDetermining the pathogenicity of missense variants in clinical genetic tests for individuals with epilepsy is crucial for guiding personalized treatment. However, achieving a definitive pathogenic classification remains challenging, with most missense variants still classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and with the availability of many computational tools which may provide conflicting predictions. Here, we aim to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art computational tools in pathogenicity prediction of missense variants in epilepsy-associated genes. This will assist in selecting the most appropriate tool and critically assess their use in clinical setting.

methodsWe assessed the performance of nine in silico pathogenicity prediction tools for missense variants in epilepsy-associated genes on three carefully curated data sets. The first two data sets comprise missense variants in epilepsy associated genes that have been uploaded to ClinVar in the last year and were, therefore, not part of the training set of any of the nine considered tools. These two data sets are based on two different lists of epilepsy-associated genes and comprise ~700 and ~ 250 missense variants, respectively. The third data set includes ~400 missense variants within epilepsy-associated genes for which the functional effects have been determined experimentally and are therefore used here to infer pathogenicity. These three data sets represent the best available approximation to blind and independent test sets.

resultsAmong the nine assessed tools, AlphaMissense (area under the curve [AUC]: .93, .88, and .95) and REVEL (AUC: .93, .88, and .93) showed the best classification performance, also outperforming other tools in the number of classified variants. SIGNIFICANCE: We show which recently developed prediction tools achieve higher performance in epilepsy-associated genes and should be integrated, therefore, into the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association of Molecular Pathology (AGMC/AMP) variant classification process. Periodic reevaluation of genetic test results with newly developed or updated tools should be incorporated into standard clinical practice to improve diagnostic yield and better inform precision medicine.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationEpilepsyMutation, MissenseComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansAlphaMissenseClinVarepilepsyepilepsy‐associated genesexperimentally tested variantsvariant pathogenicity classification

Identifiers

PMID39440667
PMCPMC11647429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.