ArticleHuman genetics2026
Horizon: CNV interpretation through rapid automated ACMG-aligned pathogenicity analysis.
Article in Human genetics, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our study assesses the Horizon model, a novel CNV classification tool developed in line with American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) guidelines, to enhance the classification of pathogenicity in CNVs. Horizon utilizes a ranking-based algorithm, incorporating multiple proprietary databases and variant inheritance models as per ACMG standards. The model’s effectiveness was verified through Area Under the Curve (AUC) analyses on three datasets comprising 635 pathogenic inherited or de novo variants, as classified by clinical geneticists and several established tools. Horizon achieved an AUC of 0.96 (accuracy: 0.9611) in the discovery cohort, demonstrating high accuracy in CNV interpretation and proficiency in predicting pathogenicity. We observed an AUC of 0.96 (accuracy: 0.8776) in the de novo variant cohort and an overall AUC of 0.93 across all cohorts, surpassing tools like ClassifyCNV (AUC: 0.81),AnnotSV (AUC: 0.85), and ISV-CNV (AUC: 0.84). It showed particular effectiveness in interpreting duplication CNVs and the highest performance for CNVs sized 3–5 Mb. The Horizon model offers robust and accurate CNV interpretation, outperforming existing tools and aligning closely with clinical evaluations. Its comprehensive approach, integrating a range of genomic features and following ACMG guidelines, makes it a crucial tool in the genomic interpretation landscape, facilitating the rapid and accurate diagnosis of genetic disorders.
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.