ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Precision in prediction: tailoring machine learning models for breast cancer missense variants pathogenicity prediction.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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.
- Pathogenicity Prediction of Missense Variations in Hereditary Cancer Genes.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate classification of genetic variants is critical for precision medicine, particularly hereditary diseases such as breast cancer. However, widely used tools like MutPred and Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD) offer genome-wide pathogenicity predictions that often overlook disease-specific variant behavior, limiting their clinical utility. This study addresses that gap by training and benchmarking nine machine learning (ML) models-including ensemble and baseline classifiers-on a breast cancer gene-specific dataset rich in conservation scores, functional annotations, and allele frequency features. Among all models, the Extra Trees model achieved the highest performance, with an accuracy of 0.999 and a 95% confidence interval of (0.998-1.000). recursive feature elimination identified the most informative genomic features, enhancing model efficiency. To ensure clinical transparency, we applied interpretability techniques including Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations and permutation feature importance, which highlighted the key drivers of each prediction. The calibration curve further confirmed the reliability of predicted probabilities, supporting their potential use in clinical decision-making. On an independent ClinGen dataset, Extra Trees achieved 99.1% accuracy and outperformed widely used predictors confirming its robustness and clinical applicability. This is the first comprehensive benchmarking study to apply ML models specifically to breast cancer-related missense variants using disease-gene-specific training data and integrated interpretability. Our results show that disease-specific ML approaches outperform general predictors, offering improved reliability, transparency, and relevance to clinical genomics. By bridging the gap between broad genome-wide tools and tailored clinical prediction, this study lays the foundation for implementing ML-driven pathogenicity prediction in breast cancer diagnostics and precision medicine, with potential expansion to other disease contexts.
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.