Automating ACMG Variant Classifications Using BIAS-2015: An Algorithm Overview and Benchmark Against the FDA-Approved eRepo Dataset
Eisenhart, C.; Mewton, J.; Brickey, R.; Bayat, V.
Show abstract
In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) in collaboration with the Association of Molecular Pathologists (AMP) published guidelines for the interpretation and classification of germline genomic variants. The ACMG terminology guidelines outlined criteria for assigning one of five categories: benign, likely benign, uncertain significance, likely pathogenic and pathogenic. While the paper laid out 28 different classifiers and the justification for them, it did not provide specific algorithms for implementing these classifiers in an automated manner. Here we present the Bitscopic Interpreting ACMG Standards 2015 (BIAS-2015) software as a complete, open-source algorithm which categorizes variants according to the ACMG classification system. BIAS-2015 evaluates 18 of the 28 ACMG criteria to classify variants in an automated and consistent way while recording the rationale for each classifier to enable in-depth review. We used the genomic data from the ClinGen Evidence Repository (eRepo v1.0.29), one of two FDA-recognized human genetic variant databases, to evaluate the performance of the BIAS-2015 algorithm. All code for BIAS-2015 has been made available on GitHub.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence-based calibration of computational tools for missense variant pathogenicity classification and ClinGen recommendations for clinical use of PP3/BP4 criteria 95%
- GA4GH Phenopacket-Driven Characterization of Genotype-Phenotype Correlations in Mendelian Disorders 92%
- Identifying digenic disease genes using machine learning in the undiagnosed diseases network 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.