ArticleAdvances in laboratory medicine2025
Evaluating seven bioinformatics platforms for tertiary analysis of genomic data from whole exome sequencing in a pilot group of patients.
Article in Advances in laboratory medicine, 2025. 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.
- Pathogenicity assessment of genetic variants in reproductive disorders.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted clinical exome sequencing: Insights and outcomes from 822 pediatric diagnoses.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- Improved genomic characterization of a clinically heterogeneous pediatric cohort with WGS vs. WES.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Lost in .*VCF Translation. From Data Fragmentation to Precision Genomics: Technical, Ethical, and Interpretive Challenges in the Post-Sequencing Era.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate seven bioinformatics platforms for automated AI-based genomic variant prioritization and classification. Methods: An evaluation was performed of 24 genetic variants that explained the phenotype of 20 patients. FASTQ files were simultaneously uploaded on the following bioinformatics platforms: Emedgene, eVai, Varsome Clinical, CentoCloud, QIAGEN Clinical Insight (QCI) Interpret, SeqOne and Franklin. Automated variant prioritization and classification was performed using patient phenotypes. Phenotypes were entered onto the different platforms using HPO terms. The classification of reference was established based on the criteria of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association of Molecular Pathology and ACMG/ClinGen guidelines. Results: SeqOne demonstrated the highest performance in variant prioritization and ranked 19 of 24 variants in the Top 1; four in the Top 5, and one in the Top 15, followed by CentoCloud and Franklin. QCI Interpret did not prioritize six variants and failed to detect one. Emedgene did not prioritize one and failed to detect one. Finally, Varsome Clinical did not prioritize four variants. Franklin classified correctly 75 % of variants, followed by Varsome Clinical (67 %) and QCI Interpret (63 %). Conclusions: SeqOne, CentoCloud, and Franklin had the highest performance in automated variant prioritization, as they prioritized all variants. In relation to automated classification, Franklin showed a higher concordance with the reference and a lower number of discordances with clinical implications. In conclusion, Franklin emerges as the platform with the best overall performance. Anyway, further studies are needed to confirm these results.
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.