ArticleFrontiers in systems biology2026
A machine learning framework for predictive interpretation of variants of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer.
Article in Frontiers in systems biology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Variant interpretation remains a major bottleneck in clinical genomics, with variants of uncertain significance (VUS) representing a critical unresolved challenge due to insufficient evidence for definitive classification. Existing in silico tools exhibit variable and often inconsistent performance complicating clinical decision-making, particularly in the context of hereditary cancer genomics. Methods: In this study, we developed a machine learning framework trained on 1,04,646 high-confidence ClinVar germline variants (3-star+ review status) annotated with Ensembl VEP (v114, GRCh38) and CADD v1.6 pathogenicity scores to classify variants as Pathogenic or Benign, subsequently applying the trained model to reclassify 40894 ClinVar VUS. Train/test partitioning was performed at the variant level (80/20 split) to prevent data leakage, with hyperparameter optimization via GridSearchCV and performance assessed by 10-fold cross-validation. Four classifiers were evaluated viz. Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest and XGBoost, with Random Forest achieving the highest performance (AUC-ROC = 0.9995, 95% CI: 0.9993-0.9997; 10-fold CV AUC = 0.9992 ± 0.0004). Probability thresholds of P ≥ 0.80 (Pathogenic) and P <= 0.20 (Benign) were derived from Precision-Recall curve analysis, achieving empirically validated precision of 99.63% and 99.77% respectively on held-out test variants. Results and Discussion: Applied to 40,894 ClinVar VUS, the model reclassified 19393 (47.4%) as Likely Pathogenic and 8,957 (21.9%) as Likely Benign, while 12,544 (30.7%) were conservatively retained as uncertain. External validation on 7,462 ENIGMA-classified BRCA1/BRCA2 variants from the BRCA Exchange database, completely independent of the ClinVar training data demonstrated an overall concordance of 98.83% (AUC = 1.0000). Further validation of VUS reclassification against 671 variants classified as VUS in ClinVar but definitively classified by ENIGMA yielded an overall concordance of 89.57% (Pathogenic: 96.4%, Benign: 87.4%). SHAP-based explainability analysis confirmed that predictions were predominantly driven by biologically interpretable features, including CADD Phred score, VEP functional impact tier, variant consequence class and population allele frequency, consistent with ACMG/AMP evidence criteria. This reproducible pipeline provides a clinically grounded computational approach to VUS triaging in precision oncology, with external validation supporting its generalizability to independent hereditary cancer gene datasets.
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.