ReviewHuman mutation2023
Reasons and Resolutions for Inconsistent Variant Interpretation.
Review in Human mutation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI in variant analysis: fast track to genetic diagnoses.Human genetics · 2026Review
- Safetyome and specialized panels for over 3,000 phenotypes: a systematic and translational approach using human genetics and pharmacology.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026Article
- Telethon Undiagnosed Disease Program: Structured approach to solving rare childhood-onset genetic diseases.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the postgenomic era, variant interpretation is crucial for diagnosing monogenic diseases, which is the premise of precision medicine. The bottleneck and difficulty of genetic disease diagnosis have switched from the inaccessibility of detection technology to the interpretation of sequencing results. Multiple studies have suggested that the inconsistency rate of interlaboratory variant interpretation is approximately 10~40%. However, many clinicians have not paid enough attention to this area at present. In this review, we summarized the reasons for inconsistency, including classification methodology, information obtained by the interpreter, evidence application, and expert judgement. For clinicians, genetic counsellors, and molecular pathologists, it is necessary to reevaluate genetic reports, especially those supported by old literature and databases in clinical practice. For unresolvable cases, pedigree analysis, collaboration with research labs for functional experiments, and long-term follow-up to combine advanced clinical presentations with updated data and literature are needed.
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.