Genetics in MedicineBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Calibration of additional computational tools expands ClinGen recommendation options for variant classification with PP3/BP4 criteria
Timothy R. BergquistiD, Sarah L. StentoniD, Emily A.W. NadeauiD, Alicia B. ByrneiD, Marc S. GreenblattiD, Steven M. HarrisoniD, Sean V. TavtigianiD, Anne O’Donnell‐LuriaiD, Leslie G. BieseckeriD, Predrag Radivojac AiD, Steven E. BrenneriD, Vikas Rao PejaveriD, Ahmad N. Abou TayouniD, Garry R. CuttingiD, Heidi L. RehmiD, Izabela Karbassi, Jessica L. MesteriD, Jonathan S. BergiD, Natasha T. StrandeiD, Peter B. KangiD, Rachel KarchiniD, Scott TopperiD, Sharon E. PloniD, Sian EllardiD, Tina F. PesaraniD
Abstract
PurposeWe previously developed an approach to calibrate computational tools for clinical variant classification, updating recommendations for the reliable use of variant impact predictors to provide evidence strength up to Strong. A new generation of tools using distinctive approaches have since been released, and these methods must be independently calibrated for clinical application. MethodUsing our local posterior probability-based calibration and our established data set of ClinVar pathogenic and benign variants, we determined the strength of evidence provided by three new tools (AlphaMissense, ESM1b, VARITY) and calibrated scores meeting each evidence strength. Results All three tools reached the Strong level of evidence for variant pathogenicity and Moderate for benignity, though sometimes for few variants. Compared to previously recommended tools, these yielded at best only modest improvements in the tradeoffs of evidence strength and false positive predictions. ConclusionAt calibrated thresholds, three new computational predictors provided evidence for variant pathogenicity at similar strength to the four previously recommended predictors (and comparable with functional assays for some variants). This calibration broadens the scope of computational tools for application in clinical variant classification. Their new approaches offer promise for future advancement of the field.
- Citations
- 86
- FWCI
- 49.61
- Field percentile
- top 1%
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
- 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
- Variant effect predictors are shaping the ClinVar classifications used to train and evaluate them
Minyu Tao, Joseph A. Marsh·bioRxiv·Oct 27, 2026
- 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
- 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
- Gene- and domain-aware calibration increases the clinical utility of variant effect predictors
Y P Chen, Shawn Fayer, … Vikas Rao Pejaver·bioRxiv·Mar 31, 2026
- P-KNN: Maximizing variant classification evidence through joint calibration of multiple pathogenicity prediction tools
Po‐Yu Lin, Nadav Brandes·bioRxiv·Sep 24, 2025