Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42157253›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2026

From text to translation: using language models to prioritize variants for clinical review.

Weijiang Li, Xiaomin Li, Ethan Lavallee, Alice Saparov, Marinka Zitnik, Christopher Cassa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Language models reveal evidence gaps in variants of uncertain significance.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Weijiang LiDivision of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02115, MA, USA.
Xiaomin LiSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Boston, 02138, MA, USA.
Ethan LavalleeDivision of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02115, MA, USA.
Alice SaparovInstitute of Human Genetics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, 80333, Germany.
Marinka ZitnikDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02115, MA, USA.
Christopher CassaDivision of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02115, MA, USA. ccassa@bwh.harvard.edu.

Funding

Integrated pathogenicity assessment of clinically actionable genetic variantsR01HG010372 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI CASSA, CHRISTOPHER · 2018 to 2022
$3.5M
From Text to Translation: Using Language Models to Resolve and Classify VariantsR21HG014015 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Christopher Cassa · 2025 to 2026
$506k
American Heart Association-American Stroke Association 24TPA1300072NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010372NHGRI NIH HHS R01HG010372NHGRI NIH HHS R21 HG014015NHGRI NIH HHS R21HG014015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite rapid advances in genomic sequencing, most rare coding variants remain insufficiently characterized for clinical use, limiting the potential of personalized medicine. When classifying whether a variant is pathogenic, clinical labs adhere to diagnostic guidelines that integrate many forms of evidence, including case data, computational predictions, and functional screening data. While a great deal of clinical evidence has been curated for many variants, the majority still cannot be definitively classified as 'pathogenic' or 'benign', and thus persist as 'Variants of Uncertain Significance' (VUS). Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs) are tasked with analyzing the available evidence for each variant to reach a classification.

methodsTo make use of previously curated evidence, we processed over 2.3 million free-text variant summaries from ClinVar, employing sentence-level classification to restrict to sentences that contain different forms of evidence, and removing uninformative or similar summaries. We then used labeled text summaries to train ClinVar-BERT, a model that can discern evidence of pathogenicity or benignity within variant text summaries.

resultsWe validated ClinVar-BERT model predictions for variant summaries that are classified as uncertain using variants curated by expert panels, orthogonal functional screening data, and computational predictions. ClinVar-BERT model predictions of VUS had significantly different estimates of functional impact in clinically actionable genes, including BRCA1 (p = [Formula: see text]), TP53 (p = [Formula: see text]), and PTEN (p = [Formula: see text]) with an AUROC = 0.927 when classifying whether variants are damaging or are expected to retain function. Similarly, ClinVar-BERT model predictions of VUS had significantly different AlphaMissense computational scores: BRCA1 (p = [Formula: see text]), TP53 (p = [Formula: see text]), and PTEN (p = [Formula: see text]). In genes screened for secondary findings or included on ClinGen expert panels, ClinVar-BERT prioritizes 7,644 variants for expert review, where 2 or more clinical summaries related to the same VUS were model-predicted to contain pathogenic evidence, and 7,042 variants with 2 or more summaries predicted to contain benign evidence. This would result in the average VCEP having 143 variants prioritized for review, ranging from 8 to 907 variants across VCEPs.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that ClinVar-BERT can discern evidence from diagnostic reports, useful for prioritizing variants for re-assessment by expert curation panels.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationHumansLarge Language ModelsPTEN PhosphohydrolasePTEN PhosphohydrolasePTEN protein, humanClinVarGenetic diagnosticsLarge language modelsVariant classification

Identifiers

PMID42157253
PMCPMC13352863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.