ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
Insights on improving accessibility and usability of functional data to unlock their potential for variant interpretation.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'Truthsets' for clinical validation of large-scale functional assays: Practice recommendations from Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK (CanVIG-UK).medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Assessing the Clinical Relevance ofCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Evidence for G6PD variant classification from multiplexed functional assays.Genome biology · 2026Article
- A comparative survey of functional evidence use in hearing and vision loss genetics.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Phenotype-Specific Recalibration of MAVE Data Enables Repurposing ofmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Not Forgotten: Patient Experiences with Genetic Variant Reclassifications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Functional assays for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant analysis: new tools and their applications.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Review
- A scalable approach to resolving variants of uncertain significance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Multiplexed assays of variant effect for clinical variant interpretation.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- ClinMAVE: a curated database for clinical application of data from multiplexed assays of variant effect.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Evidence forbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- MaveMD: A functional data resource for genomic medicine.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Validating data from multiplex assays of variant effect: A CanVIG-UK national survey of NHS clinical scientists.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Consultation informs strategies for improving the use of functional evidence in variant classification.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Sustainable Community-Wide Model to Enhance Cancer Data Usage and Utility.JCO clinical cancer informaticsArticle
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Variant-level functional data are a core component of clinical variant classification and can aid in reinterpreting variants of uncertain significance (VUSs). However, the usage of functional data by genetics professionals is currently unknown. An online survey was developed and distributed in the spring of 2024 to individuals actively engaged in variant interpretation. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to assess responses. 190 eligible individuals responded, with 93% reporting interpreting 26 or more variants per year. The median respondent reported 11-20 years of experience. The most common professional roles were laboratory medical geneticists (23%) and variant review scientists (23%). 77% reported using functional data for variant interpretation in a clinical setting, and overall, respondents felt confident assessing functional data. However, 67% indicated that functional data for variants of interest were rarely or never available, and 91% considered insufficient quality metrics or confidence in the accuracy of data as barriers to their use. 94% of respondents noted that better access to primary functional data and standardized interpretation of functional data would improve usage. Respondents also indicated that handling conflicting functional data is a common challenge in variant interpretation that is not performed in a systematic manner across institutions. The results from this survey showed a demand for a comprehensive database with reliable quality metrics to support the use of functional evidence in clinical variant interpretation. The results also highlight a need for guidelines regarding how putatively conflicting functional data should be used for variant classification.
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.