Insights on improving accessibility and usability of functional data to unlock its potential for variant interpretation
Park, M. S.; Kumar, R. D.; Ovadiuc, C.; Folta, A.; McEwen, A. E.; Snyder, A.; Fowler, D. M.; Rubin, A. F.; Shirts, B. H.; Starita, L. M.; Stergachis, A. B.
Show abstract
IntroductionVariant-level functional data is a core component of clinical variant classification and can aid in reinterpreting variants of uncertain significance (VUS). However, the usage of functional data by genetics professionals is currently unknown. MethodsAn online survey was developed and distributed in spring of 2024 to individuals actively engaged in variant interpretation. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to assess responses. Results190 eligible individuals responded, with 93% reporting interpreting 26 or more variants per year. The median respondent reported 11-20 years of experience. The most common professional roles were laboratory medical geneticists (23%) and variant review scientists (23%). 77% reported using functional data for variant interpretation in a clinical setting and overall respondents felt confident in assessing functional data. However, 67% indicated that functional data for variants of interest was rarely or never available, and 91% considered insufficient quality metrics or confidence in the accuracy of data as barriers to its use. 94% of respondents noted that better access to primary functional data and standardized interpretation of functional data would improve usage. Respondents also indicated that handling conflicting functional data is a common challenge in variant interpretation that is not performed in a systematic manner across institutions. DiscussionThe results from this survey showed a demand for a comprehensive database with reliable quality metrics to support use of functional evidence in clinical variant interpretation. The results also highlight a need for guidelines regarding how putatively conflicting functional data should be used for variant classification.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Distinct rates of VUS reclassification are observed when subclassifying VUS by evidence level 96%
- The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources 96%
- Specification of frequency criteria for secondary findings genes to improve variant classification concordance 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Validating data from Multiplex Assays of Variant Effect (MAVEs): A CanVIG-UK National Survey of NHS Clinical Scientists 96%
- Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel 94%
- Returning Actionable Genomic Results in a Research Biobank: Analytic Validity, Clinical Implementation and Resource Utilization 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Pooled Electronic Consultation Program to Improve Access to Genetics Specialists 94%
- Combined Bioinformatic and Splicing Analysis of Likely Benign Intronic and Synonymous Variants Reveals Evidence for Pathogenicity 91%
- Genetic Diagnosis of Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy Type 1 Using Rare Variant Linkage Analysis and Long Read Genome Sequencing 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Variant Scientists in Genomic Medicine: Survey of Demographics, Training, Duties, and Professional Development 94%
- Concordance of whole-genome long-read sequencing with standard clinical testing for Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes 92%
- Germline and Tumor Whole Genome Sequencing as a Diagnostic Tool to Resolve Suspected Lynch Syndrome 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing performance of pathogenicity predictors using clinically-relevant variant datasets 93%
- A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals’ views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium 92%
- How do clinician and parent reported data differ? An analysis of similarity and difference in the datasets from a cross-syndrome genetics cohort study(GenROC) 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.