medRxivGenetic & Genomic MedicinePreprint
Combining MAVEs and computational predictors improves variant classification across ancestries in hereditary cancer genes
Nikita BoraiD, Mihaly BadonyiiD, Ankit Kumar PathakiD, Rutharra Ghayadthri Manisekaran, Joseph A. MarshiD, Joanne Yuen Yie NgeowiD
Abstract
Many commonly used computational tools for variant effect prediction exhibit ancestry-related bias because they are trained on clinical or population datasets that under-represent global diversity, leading to uneven and sometimes unfair variant classification across ancestries. Multiplexed assays of variant effect (MAVEs) and population-free VEPs instead offer alternatives that are unbiased with respect to human ancestry, providing classification evidence that generalises across populations. Here, we evaluate MAVE- and VEP-based classification across five cancer-associated genes with high-quality MAVE datasets, focusing on three leading population-free VEPs: GEMME, EVE, and CPT-1. We find that MAVEs are more conservative and decisive in classification, assigning fewer variants to the pathogenic category while yielding fewer indeterminate classifications when calibrated to ACMG/AMP guidelines. While MAVEs show heightened sensitivity in functionally assayed regions, VEPs identify a broader range of pathogenic variants overall. By combining clinical evidence strengths from MAVEs and VEPs, we reclassify over 90% of variants of uncertain significance across the SG10K_Health and Mexico City Prospective Study reference datasets as at least likely benign or likely pathogenic. We further isolate variants where MAVE- and VEP-based classifications are discordant, highlighting method-specific limitations. Together, these findings clarify the complementary strengths of experimental and computational classification approaches and provide a path to less biased and more equitable variant interpretation in clinical genomics, helping to mitigate disparities in diagnosis across ancestries.
- organism: human
- assay: GWAS summary statistics
- assay: DNA methylation
- research focus: variant effect prediction
- research focus: variant calling
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: experimental assay
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 0
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
- Defining and Reducing Variant Classification Disparities
Moez Dawood, Shawn Fayer, … Irene Gallego Romero·Genome MedicinePeer-reviewed·Dec 3, 2024
- Clinical evidence yield as a framework for evaluating computational predictors and multiplexed assays of variant effect
Yifei Shang, Mihaly Badonyi, Joseph A. Marsh·bioRxiv·Mar 30, 2026
- Pervasive ancestry bias in variant effect predictors
Ankit Kumar Pathak, Nikita Bora, … Joseph A. Marsh·bioRxiv·May 20, 2024
- The impact of systematized generation, evaluation, and incorporation of machine learning algorithms for clinical variant classification
Laure Frésard, Flavia M. Facio, … Keith Nykamp·medRxiv·Feb 3, 2025
- Why variant effect predictors and multiplexed assays agree and disagree
Benjamin Livesey, Joseph A. Marsh·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Aug 27, 2026
- Variant effect predictors are shaping the ClinVar classifications used to train and evaluate them
Minyu Tao, Joseph A. Marsh·bioRxiv·Oct 27, 2026