ArticleHuman genetics2025
CAGI6 ID panel challenge: assessment of phenotype and variant predictions in 415 children with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs).
Article in Human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Genetic variants and phenotypic data curated for the CAGI6 intellectual disability panel challenge.Human genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Genetics of Neurodevelopmental Disorders Lab in Padua provided a new intellectual disability (ID) Panel challenge for computational methods to predict patient phenotypes and their causal variants in the context of the Critical Assessment of the Genome Interpretation, 6th edition (CAGI6). Eight research teams submitted a total of 30 models to predict phenotypes based on the sequences of 74 genes (VCF format) in 415 pediatric patients affected by Neurodevelopmental Disorders (NDDs). NDDs are clinically and genetically heterogeneous conditions, with onset in infant age. Here, we assess the ability and accuracy of computational methods to predict comorbid phenotypes based on clinical features described in each patient and their causal variants. We also evaluated predictions for possible genetic causes in patients without a clear genetic diagnosis. Like the previous ID Panel challenge in CAGI5, seven clinical features (ID, ASD, ataxia, epilepsy, microcephaly, macrocephaly, hypotonia), and variants (Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic, Variants of Uncertain Significance and Risk Factors) were provided. The phenotypic traits and variant data of 150 patients from the CAGI5 ID Panel Challenge were provided as training set for predictors. The CAGI6 challenge confirms CAGI5 results that predicting phenotypes from gene panel data is highly challenging, with AUC values close to random, and no method able to predict relevant variants with both high accuracy and precision. However, a significant improvement is noted for the best method, with recall increasing from 66% to 82%. Several groups also successfully predicted difficult-to-detect variants, emphasizing the importance of variants initially excluded by the Padua NDD Lab.
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.