ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
From Text to Translation: Using Language Models to Prioritize Variants for Clinical Review.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Backgrounds: Despite rapid advances in genomic sequencing, most rare genetic variants remain insufficiently characterized for clinical use, limiting the potential of personalized medicine. When classifying whether a variant is pathogenic, clinical labs adhere to diagnostic guidelines that comprehensively evaluate many forms of evidence including case data, computational predictions, and functional screening. While a substantial amount of clinical evidence has been developed for many of these variants, the majority cannot be definitively classified as 'pathogenic' or 'benign', and thus persist as 'Variants of Uncertain Significance' (VUS). Methods: We processed over 2.4 million plaintext variant summaries from ClinVar, employing sentence-level classification to remove content that does not contain evidence and removing uninformative or highly similar summaries. We then trained ClinVar-BERT to discern clinical evidence within these summaries by fine-tuning a BioBERT-based model with labeled records. Results: We validated ClinVar-BERT model predictions for variant summaries that are classified as uncertain (VUS) using orthogonal functional screening data. ClinVar-BERT significantly separated estimates of functional impact in clinically actionable genes, including Conclusion: These findings suggest that ClinVar-BERT is capable of discerning evidence from diagnostic reports and can be useful for prioritizing variants for re-assessment by diagnostic laboratories and expert curation panels.
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.