Evaluation of in silico algorithms for use with ACMG/AMP clinical variant interpretation guidelines
Abstract
BackgroundThe American College of Medical Genetics and American College of Pathologists (ACMG/AMP) variant classification guidelines for clinical reporting are widely used in diagnostic laboratories for variant interpretation. The ACMG/AMP guidelines recommend complete concordance of predictions among all in silico algorithms used without specifying the number or types of algorithms. The subjective nature of this recommendation contributes to discordance of variant classification among clinical laboratories and prevents definitive classification of variants.\n\nResultsUsing 14,819 benign or pathogenic missense variants from the ClinVar database, we compared performance of 25 algorithms across datasets differing in distinct biological and technical variables. There was wide variability in concordance among different combinations of algorithms with particularly low concordance for benign variants. We also identify a previously unreported source of error in variant interpretation where in silico predictions are opposite to the evidence provided by other sources. We identified recently developed algorithms with high predictive power and robust to variables like disease mechanism, gene constraint and mode of inheritance, although poorer performing algorithms are more frequently used based on review of the clinical genetics literature (2011-2017).\n\nConclusionsOur analyses identify algorithms with high performance characteristics independent of underlying disease mechanisms. We describe combinations of algorithms with increased concordance that should improve in silico algorithm usage during assessment of clinically relevant variants using the ACMG/AMP guidelines.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 233
- FWCI
- 16.11
- Field percentile
- top 1%
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Evaluating the impact of in silico predictors on clinical variant classification
Emma H. Wilcox, Mahdi Sarmady, … Ahmad N. Abou Tayoun·Genetics in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Dec 23, 2021
- Automating ACMG Variant Classifications With BIAS-2015 v2.0.0: Algorithm Analysis and Benchmark Against the FDA-Approved eRepo Dataset
Christopher Edward Eisenhart, Rachel Brickey, … Vafa Bayat·medRxiv·Feb 23, 2025
- Automating ACMG Variant Classifications Using BIAS-2015: An Algorithm Overview and Benchmark Against the FDA-Approved eRepo Dataset
Christopher Edward Eisenhart, Joel Mewton, … Vafa Bayat·medRxiv·Sep 18, 2024
- Evidence-based calibration of computational tools for missense variant pathogenicity classification and ClinGen recommendations for clinical use of PP3/BP4 criteria
Vikas Rao Pejaver, Alicia B. Byrne, … Scott Topper·The American Journal of Human GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Nov 21, 2022
- Beyond a single threshold: calibration of CADD v1.7 and AlphaGenome for ACMG/AMP computational evidence across variant classes, model versions, and reference data
José Patricio Miranda, Lorena Carvajal, … Cristian Saavedra·bioRxiv·Nov 2, 2026
- Calibration and refinement of ACMG/AMP criteria for variant classification with BayesQuantify
Sihan Liu, Xiaoshu Feng, … Fengxiao Bu·Journal of Medical GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Sep 19, 2025