ArticleGenome medicine2026
From text to translation: using language models to prioritize variants for clinical review.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review on the generative AI applications in human medical genetics.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Language models reveal evidence gaps in variants of uncertain significance.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.