ArticleBiomolecules & biomedicine2026
Reclassification of
Article in Biomolecules & biomedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interpreting BRCA1 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in underrepresented populations presents significant challenges due to the scarcity of ancestry-matched reference data, which can lead to an overestimation of variant rarity. This study evaluates the effectiveness of employing ancestry-stratified allele frequencies, including a subset from the Middle East, within a calibrated ACMG/AMP framework to enhance the interpretation of BRCA1 VUS. We analyzed 626 BRCA1 variants from ClinVar, comprising 608 missense, 15 splice-altering, and 3 nonsense variants categorized as VUS or "not provided." Variants were annotated using gnomAD v4 (both global and ancestry-stratified subsets) and dbNSFP, and subsequently evaluated according to workflows aligned with ACMG/AMP and ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1/2 guidelines, with cross-validation performed using the Bayesian point system. Our findings revealed that ten variants (1.6%) were reclassified. Nine missense variants were downgraded to benign or likely benign status based on BS1 and BP1 criteria; notably, none of these downgrades would have occurred if evaluated solely on global gnomAD allele frequencies. Among these, five downgrades relied on the Middle East subset, while four depended on other ancestry-stratified subgroups. Additionally, one splice-altering variant (rs1555582723) was upgraded to likely pathogenic status based on PVS1_Very Strong and PM2_Supporting criteria. In conclusion, utilizing ancestry-aware population data modestly improved the resolution of BRCA1 VUS, primarily through benign downgrades. This underscores the necessity for larger regional datasets and further functional or case-based evidence to enhance variant interpretation.
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.