Workshops to improve use of functional evidence build confidence and suggest a practice development approach.
Villani, R. M.; Terrill, B.; Tudini, E.; Matotek, E. P.; Mattiske, T.; Cliffe, C. C.; Thompson, B. A.; Satgunaseelan, L.; Hahn, C. N.; Lundie, B.; Christodoulou, J.; Rubin, A. F.; Spurdle, A. B.
Show abstract
PurposeTo increase diagnostic yield from genomic testing, it is essential to improve the use of experimental data as functional evidence in variant classification. Recent work suggests building confidence of those performing functional data evaluation may improve their capability to use functional evidence. We present a solution to develop confidence and build capability while supporting practice development, through workshop-based community discussion and consultation. MethodsA series of workshops were delivered, each with learning content centred on current expert recommendations while surveying participants in their experimental evaluation practice and opinions around evaluating experimental data. ResultsWorkshop participants were highly engaged and indicated a desire for further training and resources. Consultation suggested that ambiguity in the current recommendations underpinned differences in interpretation and ultimately resulted in practice variation. Collaborative, case-based discussion was identified as the overall preferred method of building confidence, so we propose this as an approach to field-based capability development. We delivered case-based community discussion, after which participants reported improved comfort in the evaluation practice. ConclusionThrough the consultative workshop approach, workshop participants have built confidence but also contributed to developing field recommendations. Therefore, we recommend this approach as a means to capability development for evolving fields.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- ClinGen Variant Curation Interface Workshops: Training Variant Scientists on an International Platform 94%
- Classification of Variants of Reduced Penetrance in High Penetrance Cancer Susceptibility Genes: Framework for Genetics Clinicians and Clinical Scientists by CanVIG-UK (Cancer Variant Interpretation Group-UK) 94%
- The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of DNA-poli: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to assess a digital platform for family cascade genetic testing and predictive genetic counselling 90%
- A Pooled Electronic Consultation Program to Improve Access to Genetics Specialists 90%
- Genetic Diagnosis of Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy Type 1 Using Rare Variant Linkage Analysis and Long Read Genome Sequencing 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining the Critical Educational Components of Informed Consent for Genetic Testing: Views of US-Based Genetic Counselors and Medical Geneticists 92%
- Analysis of large-language model versus human performance for genetics questions 90%
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of GPT-4 in Five Thousand Rare Disease Cases 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Variant Scientists in Genomic Medicine: Survey of Demographics, Training, Duties, and Professional Development 91%
- Clinical validation of Whole Genome Sequencing for routine cancer diagnostics 89%
- PanelCAT: an Open-Source Comparative Analysis Tool for Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Target Regions 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Validating data from Multiplex Assays of Variant Effect (MAVEs): A CanVIG-UK National Survey of NHS Clinical Scientists 95%
- Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel 93%
- Evidence-based calibration of computational tools for missense variant pathogenicity classification and ClinGen recommendations for clinical use of PP3/BP4 criteria 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.