ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
'Truthsets' for clinical validation of large-scale functional assays: Practice recommendations from Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK (CanVIG-UK).
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Large-scale functional assays, including multiplex assays of variant effect, have substantial potential to resolve variants of uncertain significance (VUS), particularly for rare missense variants where clinical and population evidence are limited. The ClinGen assay-level clinical validation framework described by Brnich et al provided baseline guidance for the use of functional data for variant classification. However, clear consensus regarding construction of variant 'truthsets' by which to clinically validate functional data remains lacking. Methods: CanVIG-UK developed consensus recommendations for truthset construction through an iterative national consultation process involving the CanVIG Steering Advisory Group (CStAG), wider CanVIG-UK membership, and engagement with international functional genomics experts. Consultation was based on previous analyses of 2,120 truthset constructions examining the impact of truthset composition on evidence point allocation within the ClinGen assay-level clinical validation framework. Results: Across several consultations, CanVIG-UK established nine guiding principles and seven best-practice recommendations for assay-level clinical validation, using the assumed context of an assay for a cancer susceptibility gene where loss-of-function is the mechanism of pathogenicity. The principal recommendation stipulates, where assays are intended for use in interpretation of largely missense variants, the truthset used to validate should comprise only missense variants. Rather than mixtures of different variant types which may serve to over-estimate assay performance. Additional recommendations support option for relaxation of truthset stringency to improve power, augmentation of benign missense truthsets with systematically derived 'proxy-clinical' benign variants, independent clinical validation separate from assayist-defined validation, and careful evaluation of missense score distributions against that of protein-truncating and synonymous variants. Guidance is also provided for scenarios with limited pathogenic truthset availability and for assays reporting multiple deleterious zones or readouts. Conclusions: The CanVIG-UK principles and recommendations for truthset construction upon the ClinGen assay-level clinical validation framework, while aiming to form a baseline for future discussion regarding other functional and disease contexts and helping to address the gap between publication of new data and routine clinical implementation.
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.