Measuring the Meaning of Genomic Results: Harmonization of the Metric for Case-Level Results in the CSER2 Consortium
Powell, B. C.; Amendola, L. M.; Bonini, K. E.; Crosslin, D.; Desrosiers-Battu, L.; Hiatt, S. M.; Hindorff, L.; Kenny, E. E.; Mavura, Y.; Muenzen Ferar, K. D.; Risch, N.; Roman, T.; Slavotinek, A.; Van Ziffle, J.; Bowling, K. M.
Show abstract
Yield of reported results from genetic testing provides a proximal measure of clinical usefulness. While ACMG/AMP guidelines provide representations of uncertainty for individual genetic variant classification, additional factors are considered when determining whether results explain a patient's presentation. To standardize cross-consortium analysis, a working group of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER2) consortium iteratively identified factors used when contextualizing variant-level results to case-level interpretation (i.e., interpretation of an individual's genetic data with respect to the indication for testing). Sites independently categorized results; complex cases were discussed collaboratively, leading to revision of classification categories. Our metric incorporates factors beyond classification of reported variants. Analogous to variant-level results, "Definitive Positive" and "Probable Positive" represent certainty that results may be clinically explanatory. The category "Inconclusive" applies when results may or may not fully explain the patient presentation, with subdivision into multiple (non-exclusive) subcategories. Cases falling outside all of the other categories are considered "Negative". The overall diagnostic yield by this metric and use of categories for inconclusive results varied by CSER project, in part paralleling study design differences. This case-level categorization provides a meaningful assessment of diagnostic yield, and for inconclusive cases identifies potentially resolvable factors for case resolution.
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 97%
- The landscape of reported VUS in multi-gene panel and genomic testing: Time for a change 97%
- Towards robust clinical genome interpretation: developing a consistent terminology to characterize disease-gene relationships - allelic requirement, inheritance modes and disease mechanisms 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Validating data from Multiplex Assays of Variant Effect (MAVEs): A CanVIG-UK National Survey of NHS Clinical Scientists 92%
- Exome copy number variant detection, analysis and classification in a large cohort of families with undiagnosed rare genetic disease 92%
- Returning Actionable Genomic Results in a Research Biobank: Analytic Validity, Clinical Implementation and Resource Utilization 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Pooled Electronic Consultation Program to Improve Access to Genetics Specialists 91%
- 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
- A comparative medical genomics approach may facilitate the interpretation of rare missense variation 93%
- EyeG2P: an automated variant filtering approach improves efficiency of diagnostic genomic testing for inherited ophthalmic disorders 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) 91%
"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.