ArticleHuman genomics2025
RENOVO-NF1 accurately predicts NF1 missense variant pathogenicity.
Article in Human genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
Abstract
Identification of a pathogenic variant in NF1 is diagnostic for neurofibromatosis, but is often impossible at the moment of variant detection due to many factors including allelic heterogeneity, sequence homology, and the lack of functional assays. Computational tools may aid in interpretation but are not established for NF1. Here, we optimized our random forest-based predictor RENOVO for NF1 variant interpretation. RENOVO was developed using an approach of "database archaeology": by comparing versions of ClinVar over the years, we defined "stable" variants that maintained the same pathogenic/likely pathogenic/benign/likely benign (P/LP/B/LB) classification over time (n = 3579, the training set), and "unstable" variants that were initially classified as Variants of Unknown Significance (VUS) but were subsequently reclassified as P/LP/B/LB (n = 57, the test set). This approach allows to retrospectively measure accuracy on prediction with insufficient information, reproducing the scenario of maximal clinical utility. We further validated performance on: (i) validation set 1: 100 NF1 variants classified as VUS at the time of RENOVO development and subsequently reclassified as P/LP/B/LB in ClinVar; (ii) validation set 2: 15 de novo variants discovered in a prospective clinical cohort and subsequently reclassified per ACMG criteria. RENOVO obtained consistently high accuracy on all datasets: 98.6% on the training test, 96.5% in the test set, 82% in validation set 1 (but 96.2% for missense variants) and 93.7% on validation set 2. In conclusion, RENOVO-NF1 accurately interprets NF1 variants for which information at the time of detection is insufficient for ACMG classification and may overcome diagnostic challenges in neurofibromatosis.
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.