Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 734

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reassessment of Mendelian gene pathogenicity using 7,855 cardiomyopathy cases and 60,706 reference samples

Open access
Walsh, Roddy, Thomson, Kate L., Ware, James S., Funke, Birgit H., Woodley, Jessica, McGuire, Karen J., Mazzarotto, Francesco, Blair, Edward, Seller, Anneke, Taylor, Jenny C., Minikel, Eric V., Exome Aggregation Consortium, MacArthur, Daniel G., Farrall, Martin, Cook, Stuart A., Watkins, Hugh·2017·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: The accurate interpretation of variation in Mendelian disease genes has lagged behind data generation as sequencing has become increasingly accessible. Ongoing large sequencing efforts present huge interpretive challenges, but they also provide an invaluable opportunity to characterize the spectrum and importance of rare variation. METHODS: We analyzed sequence data from 7,855 clinical cardiomyopathy cases and 60,706 Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) reference samples to obtain a better understanding of genetic variation in a representative autosomal dominant disorder. RESULTS: We found that in some genes previously reported as important causes of a given cardiomyopathy, rare variation is not clinically informative because there is an unacceptably high likelihood of false-positive interpretation. By contrast, in other genes, we find that diagnostic laboratories may be overly conservative when assessing variant pathogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: We outline improved analytical approaches that evaluate which genes and variant classes are interpretable and propose that these will increase the clinical utility of testing across a range of Mendelian diseases.Genet Med 19 2, 192-203.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/gim.2016.90

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 734

Metadata

Authors
Walsh, R., Thomson, K. L., Ware, J. S., Funke, B. H., Woodley, J., McGuire, K. J., Mazzarotto, F., Blair, E., Seller, A., Taylor, J. C., Minikel, E. V., Exome Aggregation Consortium, MacArthur, D. G., Farrall, M., Cook, S. A., & Watkins, H.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
192-203
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2517515998
Cited by
734
References
46
FWCI
61.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reassessment of Mendelian gene pathogenicity using 7,855 cardiomyopathy cases and 60,706 reference samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/gim.2016.90
The paper
Walsh, R., Thomson, K. L., Ware, J. S., Funke, B. H., Woodley, J., McGuire, K. J., Mazzarotto, F., Blair, E., Seller, A., Taylor, J. C., Minikel, E. V., Exome Aggregation Consortium, MacArthur, D. G., Farrall, M., Cook, S. A., & Watkins, H. (2017). Reassessment of Mendelian gene pathogenicity using 7,855 cardiomyopathy cases and 60,706 reference samples. Genetics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.90

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.