ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Somatic likelihood tiering: an interpretable post-calling triage protocol for tumor-only whole-exome variant review.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tumor-only whole-exome sequencing (WES) is used when matched normal tissue is unavailable, but one sample can produce thousands of variants. Somatic likelihood tiering (SLT) is an interpretable post-calling protocol that ranks Mutect2 calls into four review-priority tiers using population-frequency, germline-quality, cancer-knowledge, PureCN posterior, and clonal-hematopoiesis evidence. Layer 2 distinguishes common, rare-callable, and unevaluable gnomAD states; missing or unmatchable gnomAD evidence is not positive rarity evidence. On the SEQC2 HCC1395 benchmark, the callability-aware SLT-A row contained 101 calls, 78 truth variants, 77.2% PPV (95% Wilson confidence interval 68.1%-84.3%), and a Number Needed to Review (NNR) of 1.29 (1.19-1.47). The conservative SLT-C catchment retained 352 of 455 truth variants (77.4%, 73.3%-81.0%) and all tiers together retained 430 of 455 truth variants. SNV performance is the primary calibration frame: SLT-C retained 341 of 439 SNV truth variants, whereas indel results were exploratory because only 16 truth indels were available. Clinical cohorts are reported as recall and concordance versus partially dependent matched-normal Mutect2 references, not independent clinical sensitivity. Patient-level bootstrap intervals were principal: HdM-BLCA-1 SLT-A recall was 18.2% (14.0%-23.5%), and LUAD-TW SLT-A recall was 49.1% (26.6%-63.3%) among 32 evaluable patients. The HdM-BLCA-1 median SLT-A queue remained 1277 variants per patient, so SLT reduces first-pass candidate counts but does not measure review time or eliminate FFPE candidate-count burden. SLT provides an auditable tumor-only WES review queue, not a substitute for matched-normal sequencing, independent orthogonal validation, or definitive somatic classification.
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.